Health and Social Care Act 2012: Risk Register
	 — 
	Question

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will now publish the risk register prepared in advance of the passage through Parliament of the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

Earl Howe: My Lords, it remains the Government’s position that they will not be publishing the transition risk register. The decision to withhold the risk register was based on the principle that Governments, together with their civil servants, need to be able to consider all aspects of policy formation, including its risks, in private. It remains our view that a full and candid assessment of risk and the mitigating action required to manage it is carried out within a safe space.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for reminding us of the Government’s position and of what is in the public domain, but I remind him that the Question is about what the Cabinet and the Secretary of State decided should not be in the public domain. Is there no shame or embarrassment on the part of the Government, who have imposed, quite rightly, a duty of candour on the NHS but who decline to practise that policy themselves by being candid with the public, particularly with those of us who use the NHS? What are the Government hiding? If it is nothing, they should publish the register tomorrow and put it away.

Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government are fully committed to transparency and openness, but they need also to be able to manage large and complex projects and programmes efficiently and effectively. If requests for information are made that threaten to compromise their ability to do that, as is the case here, then the Government have to weigh up whether releasing what is being asked for is, on balance and bearing in mind the consequences, in the public interest. Up to now, we have taken the view that the public interest is not served by publication.

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, the previous Government refused to release Department of Health strategic risk registers in response to three requests under the Freedom of Information Act. Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House whether there is a discernible difference between this Government and the previous one in their approach to the publishing of risk registers?

Earl Howe: That is a helpful question. I do not believe there is a difference. As the noble Baroness rightly said, on a number of occasions the previous Government refused to disclose the risk registers, and they did so for perfectly good reasons, one of which was to enable the safe space that I referred to earlier.

Lord Mawhinney: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that many in your Lordships’ House will welcome this reaffirmation of the Government’s policy, particularly those who have had the privilege of being Ministers?

Earl Howe: My noble friend of course speaks with enormous experience of life in government, and I welcome his endorsement of the Government’s policy.

Lord Grocott: Will the Minister, who is clearly not going to give the information from the risk register, perhaps give us a clue along the following lines? Given the experience of the reform in operation, have any of the risks that were identified in the private risk register come to pass, or is everything going wonderfully well?

Earl Howe: My Lords, the risk register, as the noble Lord knows, is simply a tool that records the risk assessment process and the actions that need to be taken to mitigate those risks. However, to be effective, the process has to be robust and consider all likely implications—and indeed some that are not so likely—of a proposed course of action. The candid recording of risks enables them to be effectively managed. However, as the noble Lord knows, we have gone as far as we can in publishing the areas of risk that are contained within the risk register. I remind the noble Lord that in 2012 we published an extensive document that set out quite a lot of detail. That document is still available on the department’s website.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my health interests. To return to the Question asked by my noble friend, is it not a fact that officials warned Ministers that they would be introducing a shambolic reform of the health service? Those officials, much-maligned by the noble Lord’s ministerial colleagues, have been proved to be absolutely right. As we are all looking forward to the new musical by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, can the noble Earl tell me which will be published first: the full Profumo papers or the noble Earl’s risk register?

Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not accept the noble Lord’s description of the transition, which has gone extremely smoothly. By most measures the NHS is performing very well indeed. Waiting times are low and stable, the number of people waiting more than 12 months has plummeted since 2010, hospital-acquired infections are at an all-time recorded low, we have more doctors and healthcare professionals in the system, and mixed-sex accommodation has been reduced to minimal levels. That does not indicate to me that the reforms have had a damaging effect—quite the reverse.

Lord Dobbs: My Lords, I am not sure whether a risk register was published before the war in Iraq. However, will my noble friend use his best influence on his colleagues in government to make sure that in the interests of candour the Chilcot report is published as soon as possible? We have all waited long enough for answers on that particular affair.

Earl Howe: My noble friend is quite right. We can all look forward to the publication of that thorough report.

Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top: My Lords, if the reforms are going so well, why does the Secretary of State, who now presides over an Act that said that the health service would be at a long arm’s length from Ministers, now see the key people in the health service at least once a week? Why does he take it upon himself personally to interfere in ways that during the passage of the Bill the Minister here told us very clearly Ministers would no longer be doing?

Earl Howe: The noble Baroness would have cause to complain if, in accordance with the debates that we had in this House on accountability, my right honourable friend did not hold the NHS to account on some of the areas of its activities where there were concerns. That is exactly what he does, and he does it quite properly.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: Is it not the case, in relation to the Chilcot report, that it is not the Government who are holding it up but something else? Will the Minister not hide behind red herrings like that? It is he and his Government who are refusing to publish the risk register, and they surely must do so.

Earl Howe: My Lords, over the passage of time a view can be taken about the sensitivity of the Department of Health risk register. That is what we have undertaken to do and what we will do. Next spring, we will reach one of the regular review points for the risk register. I can tell the noble Lord that work to review the register has already started in anticipation of that date.

Schools: Expenditure Per Pupil
	 — 
	Question

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the average spend per pupil in the state-funded education sector for 11 to 18 year-olds; and how that figure compares to the average spend per pupil in the private sector for the same age group.

Lord Nash: My Lords, we estimate that state schools received revenue and capital funding of £6,350 per pupil in 2012-13, compared to independent day schools, which received £11,510. These figures cover pupils aged three to 19 years old, as there is no available
	breakdown of either figure to cover the requested age range of 11 to 18 year-olds. We cannot provide data relating to 2013-14, as these are not yet available.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that unexpectedly helpful reply. We can accept from what he said that there is clearly a significant difference between the amounts of money being spent on children in maintained schools and those in independent schools. The House has often heard the Minister extol the virtues of the independent schools, and I acknowledge that there is a lot to admire in the best of them, but would he acknowledge that to use as he does the achievements of that privileged and exclusive sector as a stick with which to beat maintained schools is neither fair nor reasonable? Would he further agree that what parents who can afford to pay are buying—and I speak with authority on this matter—is not narrow focus on academic achievement, important as that may be, but a broad curriculum that properly values, for example, sport, music, drama and the humanities, the very subjects now fighting to avoid marginalisation under the Government’s new national curriculum arrangements?

Lord Nash: The noble Baroness is quite right that we cannot make the comparison, for the reasons that she states. I am delighted that she found my Answer helpful; we are always here to be as helpful as we can. I do not seek to use the independent sector as a stick to beat the state sector, but I personally find it quite shocking that 7% of the population go to private schools yet they take more than half the top jobs and more than 40% of the places in our top universities. That is a level of social immobility that I am sure we are all determined to change, without wishing in any way to knock either the state or independent sector.
	I agree entirely that all pupils should receive a broad and balanced curriculum. The noble Baroness has vast experience of the performing arts. In their contributions to the “Best Eight” measure, there will be plenty of opportunity for schools to make a showing on a broad and balanced basis with subjects such as drama and music.

Lord Lexden: Would my noble friend agree that it is important to bear in mind that more than one-third of pupils in independent schools pay reduced fees? Would not that proportion be even larger if the Labour Party had not abolished Margaret Thatcher’s marvellous assisted places scheme?

Lord Nash: I am fully aware that the independent sector provides bursaries of £300 million a year to pupils whose parents might otherwise not be able to afford to send them there, and that there are many examples of independent/state school partnerships. More than 90% of the Independent Schools Council members, 1,100 of them, support activities such as co-sponsorship of academies, or sponsorship—34 schools do that, while 388 schools provide specific lessons or other educational activities to state school pupils. Our ambition in this Government is to support all state schools and to improve their performance.

Lord Storey: My noble friend will be aware that the Charities Act 2011 can allow leeway for independent schools to claim charitable status if they are deemed to be of public benefit. Can the Minister make an assessment of how independent schools can further justify that they deserve this status by sharing facilities with state-educated children in the local community, thereby enhancing their education and opportunities?

Lord Nash: I have already mentioned the independent/state school partnerships, which are very active. I also mentioned bursaries. Precise assessment is impossible but we are keen to encourage, in any way we can, the independent sector to support the state sector. Despite the difference in finances there is a lot that both sectors can learn from each other. We should encourage the independent sector to engage with the state sector, rather than seek to berate it in any way.

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: My Lords, I presume that the noble Lord will acknowledge that most public schools are, quite rightly, proud of their sporting achievements and their extensive sports facilities. As the noble Lord has committed himself to tackling the challenge of social mobility, how can this Government justify selling off so many sports fields? I think it was 50 state sports facilities at the last count. This obviously puts children in state schools at a disadvantage.

Lord Nash: As the noble Baroness said to me recently, I was not around, but I think our record on this is rather better than that of the party opposite. Indeed, we now have a very strong presumption that schools cannot sell off their sports facilities unless they are replacing them with equivalent ones. We are very keen to see all new schools have sports facilities. Where we are building schools in confined spaces, which we often are, we have used artificial turf or maybe sports facilities on the roof. We consistently now use games such as table tennis and basketball, which can be played by many pupils in confined spaces.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does the 7% that my noble friend cited as being high achievers include those children in this country who have the finest free education in the world at our remaining grammar schools?

Lord Nash: There is no doubt that our grammar schools provide an extremely good education. It is an interesting fact that, whereas 7% of the population get 50% of the top jobs, the grammar schools, which educate about 4.5% of the population, get more than 20% of the top jobs. This means that 90% of the population are getting into under 30% of the top jobs. It is that kind of inequality, particularly for poorer pupils, that this Government are particularly determined to improve.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: In view of the huge fees at Eton College, does the Minister agree that Stanley Johnson should ask for his money back?

Lord Nash: I do not.

Railways: Rolling Stock
	 — 
	Question

Tabled by Lord Greaves
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what opportunities exist for increasing the quantity and improving the quality of railway rolling stock in the north of England.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Greaves, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

Lord Popat: My Lords, the Government’s investment in railway electrification in the north gives the opportunity to improve rolling stock. First TransPennine Express’s 10 new electric trains for the Manchester-Scotland route will come into service from this month. The department asked Northern Rail to develop proposals to introduce electric trains in the north-west from December 2014. Current investment in rolling stock will increase the number of vehicles available to the new north of England franchises due to start in 2016.

Lord Bradshaw: My noble friend may have seen the letter written at the end of November by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State, which refers to Rail North—that includes the Northern Rail and First TransPennine Express TOCs—having devolved responsibility for the procurement of rolling stock. This has been announced with great guns in the north, where it is desperately needed. However, the letter also refers to the DfT,
	“taking a significant role within an initial partnership structure”.
	That statement is further qualified towards the end of the letter with the words:
	“DfT will run those franchise competitions to a common timetable, working closely with Rail North”.
	Are we to understand that this is devolving responsibility to the regions, or is it yet another way in which the department is actually accreting more responsibility to itself?

Lord Popat: The noble Lord asks an important and interesting question. The Government remain supportive of the principle of devolution in the north of England. We have agreed with Rail North leaders an initial partnership structure to take forward devolved decision-making across the north of England to help manage the risk associated with a project of this scale. Rail North and the department’s officials are developing further details of the partnership for presentation to the Secretary of State and the Rail North local authorities early in the new year. Proposals to decentralise transport powers will assist in building a rebalanced economy away from reliance on the City of London.

The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, my noble friend is probably aware that I travel from Swindon every day, which for many centuries was one of the
	homes of train manufacturing, although, sadly, that is no longer the case. What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to help train manufacturing?

Lord Popat: My Lords, this country has a long and proud tradition of building the best trains in the world. We would, of course, like to buy trains built in Britain wherever possible, and along with the Bombardier factory in Derby, the recent announcement that Hitachi is building a new factory in Darlington is welcome news. As part of our industrial growth strategy, the Government have taken a series of steps to support manufacture in this country. We can, and do, produce high-quality goods that are desired around the world. These railways can be very useful for us to sell abroad, especially to Africa and other countries.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, can we get to the nitty-gritty here? The Minister is surely aware that the average age of the northern franchise rolling stock is 24 years, and that of the Merseyside rolling stock is 34 years. The northern franchise uses the Pacer extensively. The Pacer is a bus body put on a freight chassis. It is exceedingly uncomfortable, unsafe and by 2019, which is the terminal date, it should meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act, but it will not do so. Are not the Government responsible for this appalling state of affairs on northern railways?

Lord Popat: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that most of our rolling stock is very old. That is why we have embarked on £38 billion worth of investment in our railways to include new rolling stock. The Pacer does not currently meet the necessary standards that all trains must meet by 2020. It will be for the owners to decide whether to scrap them or to invest in extending their operating lives. With electrification, many more new trains will replace these old trains.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that last Saturday a significant rugby league match took place in Manchester, and that many people from the eastern side of the Pennines—the Yorkshire side—were anxious to attend it? Northern Rail ran two-coach trains across the Pennines. People were either packed into those trains like sardines or they did not get on them. Does the noble Lord believe that this shows the problem that we have with rolling stock? When significant events take place, if train operating companies cannot increase the number of carriages on trains using their own stock, should they not hire rolling stock from other train operating companies so that people can travel to these events in comfort?

Lord Popat: My Lords, there has been underinvestment in our railways for the past five decades. This Government have embarked on an unprecedented rail modernisation programme. Between 2014 and 2019, the infrastructure operator Network Rail will spend more than £38 billion on running and expanding our railways. With regard to Manchester, new electric trains are being delivered for the First TransPennine Express service from Manchester to Glasgow and Edinburgh. The choice of trains on other routes will be a matter for the local train operators.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister was asked why the train operators cannot put on extra carriages. Can he explain how his answer addressed that question?

Lord Popat: I thought that I did address it: we have a shortage of carriages. The only way to address that is by buying new ones and many are on order. However, electrification will obviously help the capacity issue.

Immigration: Detention
	 — 
	Question

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the light of the case of Mr Isa Muazu, they will clarify their policy in relation to the detention of immigration detainees who are seriously ill and refuse food and fluids.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, a refusal to eat or drink will not automatically mean that a person should be released from immigration detention. This position has been upheld by the courts. On 19 November, Mr Justice Ouseley said that he did not accept the suggestion that the Secretary of State had adopted a hardline policy of saying that there would be no release for this claimant who was refusing food and fluid. He went on to say that the decision to start, maintain and continue the refusal of food and fluids to the end was for the claimant to make, adding that,
	“his detention does not become unlawful simply because he is determined on that outcome”.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, the Minister may be aware that last week I received an assurance from the Home Secretary that landing arrangements had been made in Nigeria. Something went seriously wrong. Why did the Government attempt to remove a dying man at such human and financial cost, and will the Minister give us an assurance today that Mr Muazu will not be deported in his present condition? Will he also instigate an immediate review into immigration detention and end such routine and inhumane treatment, always remembering that asylum seekers—even failed asylum seekers—are human beings just like us and deserve deep respect?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, it may help the House if I update noble Lords on the current situation concerning Mr Muazu. The welfare of detainees is our highest priority. While refusing food and fluids, Mr Muazu was continually offered medical treatment, including patient care at hospital, which, until recently, he continually refused. Mr Muazu is regularly monitored. The latest assessment—I had a report this morning—shows that he is eating and drinking well and is mobile, and that he continues to be fit to fly.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, given that Mr Muazu was sent back on a plane and that the Government had failed to alert the Nigerian authorities about the arrival of that plane, what did the Government think was going to happen to Mr Muazu if he landed there? Were any arrangements made to look after him, given that at that point his health was very precarious?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, Mr Muazu’s flight to Nigeria on Friday returned to the UK for operational reasons which were not connected to his health or conduct. I assure noble Lords that a member of the Nigerian high commission was on that flight.

Lord Pannick: My Lords, does the Minister believe that it was a sensible use of resources to charter an aircraft to remove a single individual from this country, as in the case of Mr Muazu?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The operational practices are not a matter that I want to discuss particularly but this case has great public interest. It is not the first time that an aircraft has been chartered for this purpose. It might help noble Lords to know that the number of enforced removals in 2008 was 17,200-odd and last year it was 14,600-odd. However, voluntary removals went up from 18,000 to 29,663 last year.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, are not all so-called detainees free to leave the so-called detention centre at any time, but only through the door marked “home” and not through the door marked “United Kingdom”? Should our noble friend Lord Roberts not make his complaint to the Nigerian authorities, which refused to accept one of their own citizens back home?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I will not comment on the latter point but, obviously, the Government’s policy is that when people are here and they have no permission to remain they should depart voluntarily.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: Does my noble friend agree that someone being deported should at least be physically able to sustain their health during the flight? Does he further agree that there should be some contact with the Government of the country to which a person is returning to ensure that a man who is seriously ill will be met at the airport and taken to suitable accommodation to enable him to survive?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I think that my noble friend’s allegations about the condition of Mr Muazu at the time he was flying back to Nigeria are inaccurate. As I have said, he is currently fit to fly. He is eating and drinking, and is mobile.

Lord Tomlinson: Does the Minister accept that the Government’s policy of trying to reduce the net immigration figure from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands is in tatters? Does he not share my regret that Mr Cameron had to go to China to slip it out in an answer there?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am sorry that the noble Lord takes that view. I am normally a consensual politician but I have to say that the record of the current Opposition when they were in Government was that net immigration rose by more than 2 million. That was out of control. The current situation is that this Government are taking steps to ensure that there are proper controls on immigration to this country, which I hope are supported by this House and, indeed, by noble Lords opposite. They can be difficult. The responsibility in a case such as this is not easy. Many noble Lords on both sides of this House have been faced with that responsibility. We should not shirk from that situation.

Children and Families Bill
	 — 
	Order of Consideration Motion

Moved by Lord Nash
	That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 6, Schedule 1, Clauses 7 to 12, Schedule 2, Clauses 13 to 72, Schedule 3, Clauses 73 and 74, Schedule 4, Clauses 75 to 94, Schedule 5, Clause 95, Schedule 6, Clauses 96 to 105, Schedule 7, Clauses 106 to 119.
	Motion agreed.

National Infrastructure Plan
	 — 
	Statement

Lord Deighton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury today in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
	“Mr Speaker, as honourable Members will be aware, this June, I made a Statement to the House laying out the Government’s long-term plans for UK infrastructure, in which I set out our plans to invest more than £100 billion of taxpayer’s money over the next decade towards improving our transport networks, energy networks, digital networks and other specific infrastructure projects crucial to our civic life.
	This morning, the Government published the latest updates of the national infrastructure plan, or NIP, and the investment pipeline. First, the documents provide an update on the projects that have been delivered to date, including the completion of 353 flood and coastal erosion schemes; 36 transport projects; major station upgrades, as we have seen at Kings Cross; and 10,000 houses being given access to superfast broadband every week.
	Secondly, the documents update our plans to further improve delivery. The updated pipeline provides the most comprehensive overview of planned and potential infrastructure investment ever produced, which gives investors the long-term clarity and certainty they need to put their money into our infrastructure.
	The NIP also includes changes around legal and planning practices, including reforms to judicial review.
	Thirdly, the documents update some of the details of our last infrastructure plan, including: changes to energy strike prices reducing slightly support for onshore wind and solar; increasing investment in offshore wind; meeting our growth commitments as cost-efficiently as possible; decisions on the option of the renewable heat incentive regime; changes to specific transport schemes, such as our decision not to toll the A14; to provide new investment in the A5; and to contribute £30 million to the garden bridge in London, as well as other important developments, such as our plans to double our corporate asset sales target.
	Finally, today’s publication lays out the commitment, made today by a group of insurers, to work with government and regulators and invest £25 billion in UK infrastructure over the next five years. I am sure that honourable Members will agree that this represents a massive vote of confidence in the UK economy.
	It also draws attention to the new agreement, signed with Hitachi and Horizon this morning, which commits us in principle to offering a guarantee for their nuclear power station at Anglesey. I am sure that honourable Members who have had a chance to look through the document will recognise that this is real evidence that we are making real progress on delivering an infrastructure fit for our country’s future.
	The NIP is a plan that demonstrates a long-term vision for our energy, transport and digital networks. It is a plan that is helping to secure long-term investment. It is a plan that will lead to sustainable, strong, long-term growth. As such, I look forward to the honourable Member welcoming it with open arms and congratulating us on our progress”.
	That concludes the Statement.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I welcome one part of the Statement—the decision to abandon the hare-brained scheme to levy tolls on the A14, which would have led to a mass diversion of trucks and cars on to Cambridgeshire villages.
	However, does the Minister agree that the A14 episode illustrates why the Government are delivering so little real infrastructure as they announce ever more grandiose targets and plans? The upgrade of the A14—a vital growth corridor from the east coast ports to the Midlands—was shovel-ready in 2010. One of the first acts of the coalition Government was to cancel it, along with a string of other major road schemes, the expansion of Heathrow and 715 school-building schemes which were all ready to go. Last year, Ministers tried to resuscitate the A14 as a toll road with magic money. Now that scheme has collapsed, we are back to where we were in 2010, except that the costs have gone up by £200 million.
	Is this not the story of infrastructure non-delivery on roads, airports and energy, and even more on housing, where completions are at their lowest level since the 1920s? Does this not explain why the ONS says that infrastructure work is down 3.7% in the past year after a fall of 10% in 2012; why the World Economic
	Forum ranks the UK 24th in infrastructure behind Oman and Barbados; and why today’s Treasury press release on the national infrastructure plan heralds, as one of its greatest advances, the spending of £10 million on new light bulbs in NCP car parks?

Lord Deighton: I thank the noble Lord for bringing his experience to bear on what is a very important subject. I do not want to go through the normal procedure, whereby the Government lay out their plan for infrastructure and then the Opposition say that nothing much is happening. It is much too important for that. Remember that there was no national infrastructure plan before this Government came into office in 2010. All the reasons around any deferral of capital expenditure are totally a function of the economic mess that the previous regime left this country in.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Deighton: One can laugh but it is as simple as that. Over the past three years, we have been trying to fix that problem—to stabilise the fiscal position and to push across money into vital capital schemes where we can afford it. That is what happened in the Autumn Statements in 2011 and in 2012. All the schemes that we laid out then are absolutely on timetable in terms of the announcements made at those points.
	My right honourable friend the Chief Secretary went through the entire list of things that are currently being delivered, but the purpose of this plan is to break us out of the short-term cycle. I do not want us to be 27th on that list of countries: we are there because of 30 to 40 years of underinvestment. We, on both sides of the House, need to fix this together by promoting a focus on infrastructure to the top of the priority list for our economic strategy. We need to continue, through Government after Government, to prioritise in the right way; to get the systems working so we choose the right projects; to improve our capability so we deliver them effectively; and to make sure that this country is modernised in the way it deserves.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I will give you a change from criticism. This plan is one of the first attempts to bring our infrastructure up to date but—there is a big “but”—we do not have the trained people to build power stations, develop the railway or set up the broadband. It is essential that we put some real life into the provision of engineering apprenticeships to provide the skilled people we need. I ask the Government to focus the necessary attention, once again, on our poor record in engineering training.

Lord Deighton: I thank my noble friend for his praise for the plan. It is important to focus consistently, year after year, on improving our capability to deliver infrastructure. I absolutely accept the importance of ensuring that we have a pipeline of engineering capability, brought right through from schools—and a renewed focus on STEM subjects—universities and research establishments, to enable us to deliver these projects effectively.

Baroness Meacher: My Lords, I speak as somebody who studied a bit of economics a very long time ago. All Ministers understand as well as I do that what happened in 2008 was, in fact, a banking crisis that began in the United States and affected the western world. We happen to have some big banks here and it therefore caused us some difficulties. It is not fair to neglect, over and over again, where this all started.

Lord Deighton: I thank the noble Baroness for broadening the perspective of the debate. While I accept that the banking crisis was an important contributor, it is clear to me, from my time in the Treasury, that the spending planned through those last few years created significant problems for this country.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, what proportion of the sums involved in the schemes announced today, many of which are recycled, do the Government expect to be spent in the north-east, the region with the highest levels of unemployment—in particular youth unemployment—in the country?

Lord Deighton: I am afraid I do not have the regional breakdown at my fingertips. However, if the noble Lord would care to go into the national infrastructure plan website, there is a map where you can drill down and see the details of every planned project, region by region.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, do the plans include the long, long-awaited dualling of the A1 in north Northumberland?

Lord Deighton: That particular project, along with five or six others, is the subject of a feasibility study to determine the right solution. Next year, when all those studies are complete, we will make a decision to go ahead with the proposed solution.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, had the Government stuck to Labour’s spending plans, capital expenditure would have been cut by considerably more and that, in coming into Government, we actually increased the allocation for capital expenditure? I congratulate him on his initiative, but how are the Government’s proposals to reduce the cost of electricity consistent with promoting offshore wind farms, which are the most expensive possible form of renewable energy and which will have to be paid for through people’s electricity bills?

Lord Deighton: With the first part of his question, as always, my noble friend forensically brings us to the detail. It is quite true that the Opposition’s plans for capital expenditure were lower than this Government’s. Subsequently, we switched current spend into capital spend in the Autumn Statements in 2011 and 2012, which further exacerbated this side’s advantage on investment. On my noble friend’s observation about offshore wind strike prices, the purpose of today’s announcement was to give the industry certainty in order to be able to get on with the building that we
	need, not only in nuclear but in wind and, over time, with the capacity mechanism, in gas. There are of course a variety of views about the speed at which we should decarbonise and the value of that, but the current status reflects our view on getting a diversified supply of energy.

Baroness Ford: My Lords, the Statement hints at changes to judicial review. As the Minister well knows, delivering infrastructure requires not just a plan —which we are pleased to hear about even though we, as a Government, plainly had a plan, whether he recognises that or not—but access to requisite finance and, critically, planning consent. The Government in their supposed wisdom decided not to go through with the infrastructure planning commission, which would have been a huge asset in delivering speedy planning consents for major infrastructure projects. Can the Minister say whether the changes to judicial review will accomplish exactly the same end?

Lord Deighton: I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention and for bringing her experience to bear on this. The whole idea of the judicial review changes is to make sure that, on all matters relating to national infrastructure, we get through the process more quickly, where it is appropriate, and fast-track them. That is consistent with what she is discussing.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
	 — 
	Committee (6th Day)

Relevant documents: 12th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
	Amendment 56MD
	 Moved by Baroness Smith of Basildon
	56MD: Before Clause 100, insert the following new Clause—
	“Firearms licences: assessing public safety
	(1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 28A (certificates: supplementary) insert—
	“28B Assessing public safety
	(1) When assessing the threat to public safety under section 27, 28, 30A, 30B or 30C, the chief police officer must ensure that a range of background checks are performed.
	(2) Where these checks uncover substantiated evidence of violent conduct, domestic violence, mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse, the presumption is that the chief police officer should refuse the licence application unless exceptional evidence can be brought forward by the applicant as to their suitability to possess a weapon.
	(3) When assessing public safety within this section, the chief police officer must follow any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
	(3) After section 113(1) (power of Secretary of State to alter fees) there is inserted—
	“(1A) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State must consult chief police officers to ensure the level of fees collected by the police under sections 32 and 35 are appropriate after considering the costs they incur through the administration and assessment of firearms’ licences made under this Act.””

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, we support the Government’s clauses on firearms but feel that more needs to be done, which is why we have tabled Amendment 56MD. Our proposed new clause calls for a broader range of better background checks to be included as part of the licensing process. It amends the Firearms Act 1968 so that a history of domestic violence, drug or alcohol abuse, or mental illness provides a presumption against the acquisition of a firearms licence, unless exceptional evidence can be provided to the contrary. It also introduces full cost recovery, to ensure that the cost of a licence reflects the cost to the police of processing it. In this amendment, firearms and shotgun applications are treated the same and the range of background checks is improved. Both the IPCC and the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place called for this.
	The Minister will recall that I raised this issue at Second Reading and gave a specific example, about which I know he will share my concerns. Susan McGoldrick was murdered, along with her niece and her sister, by her partner, who legally held a firearm. As many as one in three women killed by their partner in England and Wales is shot with a legally owned weapon; 64% of these murders involve shotguns. The Government have introduced new guidance, which is welcome, and I know that we cannot stop every crime by legislation alone, but we can do better.
	In the past 12 months, 75% of female gun deaths occurred in domestic incidents; in 2009 the figure was 100%. The IPCC and the Home Affairs Select Committee have both proposed tougher rules to prevent people with a history of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness or violence—particularly domestic violence—from acquiring firearms licences. The IPCC called for:
	“Explicit guidance around domestic violence and seeking the views of partners/family members where domestic violence is a previous factor”.
	We agree with the need for explicit and clear guidance on legislation but the issue of seeking the views of partners or ex-partners is somewhat difficult, and we would not support seeking the consent of a partner or former partner because that could lead to intimidation and place people at even greater risk. Perhaps there should be wider consultation on this with a range of people.
	The present position is that just one home visit is required by law for an initial application. Good practice means that there can be additional visits or checks, but that is not in the legislation. I understand why there are concerns about the impact of part of this amendment on those who have a history of mental illness. I stress that mental illness at some point in a person’s life does not disqualify them for ever but they would have to provide evidence that would allow an exceptional case to be made for their suitability to possess a weapon. Of course, we are not saying that they cannot take part in shooting—there are registered clubs—they just cannot have weapons at home.
	The Government have stated that the Home Office will issue guidance and that should alleviate the issue. But we are pretty sure that guidance alone is not enough to tackle tragic domestic violence-related deaths, which have been on the rise. It is not good enough, and that is why we have tabled Amendment 56MD.
	The other part of the amendment concerns full cost recovery. In so many areas, the Government are seeking full cost recovery, but not in firearms. I am curious about the reasons for this anomaly. Our amendment would require the Home Secretary to consult with police officers before setting a fee level that would enable police forces to recoup all the costs they incur when conducting proper background checks.
	Currently a firearms licence costs just £50 for five years and only £40 for renewal, but if an application is processed properly it takes up a considerable amount of time, including home checks and background checks, which is not reflected in the cost of the licence. The cost of administering a firearms licence is much higher. Therefore, at present the taxpayer is subsidising the firearms licensing system by an estimated £18 million a year. Given the level of police cuts across the country, that level of subsidy seems unfair. It is difficult to understand why, at £50 for five years, the annual cost of a firearms licence is barely a third of the cost of a fishing licence, which costs £27.50 a year, and roughly equivalent to the cost of a CRB check, which costs £44 and only requires a name to be checked against a database, which is much less onerous.
	The Government’s current position is that they will aim to introduce a fee regime in 2015 under which just 50% of the cost—not the full cost—is recovered by the police. I ask the Minister: why only 50% and why not until 2015? Why are fishing licences so much more expensive? Why are the Government not going for full cost recovery when they are committed to that general principle across the public sector, for example, with passports and driving licences? Why is that not extended to gun licences? At Second Reading we discussed full cost recovery on tribunal fees; that will come up again. The Government claim that they want to improve the system of background checks associated with firearms licences but will not commit to putting that in legislation. On full cost recovery, they say that they will introduce a fee regime in 2015.That is too late; it can be done sooner than that.
	These issues need to be addressed now. We want to save lives and reduce the number of gun-related domestic violence deaths as soon as possible. Amendment 56MD seeks to do this and is a much more direct and effective solution than the Government’s alternative of vague guidance and promises for 2015. I beg to move.

The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest. I have interests in shooting and I am a firearms and shotgun licence holder. I have also been a referee for others who are such licence holders.
	After the tragedy of Dunblane, it was one of my party tricks to ask chief officers of police whom I ran into how we were getting on with the police national firearms computer, which was promised in the wake of that tragedy. It took a very long time for anything that even approached that to become a reality.
	I said on Second Reading that I supported the Government’s proposals to tighten things up with regard to firearms licences. The amendment, however, seems to rest on a premise that is at variance with my experience and that of others whom I know. I sought
	information from the British Association of Shooting and Conservation. I am not a member of BASC, but every now and again, I attend the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Shooting and Conservation, for which BASC provides secretarial support. It has largely confirmed my belief.
	I believe that the measures in proposed new Clause 28B, “Assessing public safety”, and subsection (1) in particular, are already being performed—those checks are already taking place. That is certainly my experience of what the police in more than one force are doing in response to an application. I believe that there is a new ACPO professional practice document for firearms licences due early in 2014. I have not seen it, but I understand that it will set out how that will be dealt with at database level on the police national computer, including local intelligence and the domestic violence unit. I understand that there is also new guidance from the Home Office, but I have not seen that either, but presumably it will tie in with what ACPO is doing. So I question whether the amendment is necessary.
	On new subsection (2) and the question of,
	“substantiated evidence of violent conduct”,
	and so on, the chief officer of police must also always have final discretion on the matter, but that subsection appears to take that discretion away. That was also the view of BASC. In any event, presumption exists that someone such as Michael Atherton, who was known to be a heavy drinker and in a violent domestic situation, will be refused. Durham police knew that but failed to act. The amendment does not add anything and would do nothing to make that failure more or less likely. Perhaps the Minister has a different take on that.
	On new subsection (3) and the question of the guidance of the Secretary of State, this may sound like semantics, but if it is guidance, adherence to it is presumably not mandatory. For it to be mandatory, there must be something more like a directive or regulation. If it is guidance or whatever, chief officers of police ought to adhere to it or be able to give pretty compelling evidence why they have departed from it. That should be on a case-by-case basis. The reason that I say that is that I am advised that settled law requires every such case to be considered on its merits.
	With regard to the question of fees, I was not clear whether what is proposed is a flat rate, which is what we have at the moment, or whether there should be a variable rate depending on whether someone was what you might call a difficult customer and therefore needed more investigation. Perhaps that could be explained.
	I do not really have a view on the actual level, other than that it should be proportionate and consonant with other licensing regimes. I suspect that in reality £50 looks a bit cheap. Those are my comments on the amendment.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, this seems to be a matter of straightforward common sense. When there is a history either in which people have been involved in violence or which suggests that they may not always be in full command of their activities, because of alcohol or drug misuse, those are exactly the sort of people who should be denied access to firearms. The cases cited about firearms being used in domestic violence situations are a particularly compelling example of why this is important.
	While I accept that chief officers of police must use their judgment, spelling out in legislation in this way that these are the matters they should look at, and that the presumption should be one in which they would refuse a licence application, is exactly the right way round it. That would then place the onus on those seeking the licence to demonstrate why they are suitable, notwithstanding the history of violence they may have shown or the fact that they were known to have substance abuse problems.
	It is also extraordinary to hear from my noble friend Lady Smith about the difference in fees for various sorts of licence. This is surely an example where the fees should be set to reflect the fact that the checks which should be done should be thorough and all embracing, and should certainly cover the matters outlined in this amendment. On any common-sense interpretation of what Parliament should be doing about restricting the access to firearms of people who might be a danger to others, this is exactly the sort of amendment that should be put forward and agreed.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I am pleased that we have had this short debate on what is a very important issue. The new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, relates to two firearms licensing issues which were discussed extensively during the passage of the Bill in the House of Commons. As the noble Baroness has explained, the first part of the proposed new clause seeks to create a presumption that if an applicant for a firearm meets one of the stated criteria, the police should not grant a licence. The stated criteria include evidence of domestic violence, mental illness and drug or alcohol abuse. While I share the anxiety of the noble Baroness about firearms being possessed or accessed by unsuitable persons, the police already have the ability to take these factors into account when assessing the risk to public safety. I would also be concerned about including mental illness as a presumption for a refusal. It would be wrong for us to suggest that all forms of mental illness, even a past episode, should prima facie disqualify a person from possessing a firearm.
	I understand that there are particular concerns about domestic violence and abuse. In response to these, on 31 July, we published specific guidance on this issue which provided greater detail on how the police should handle such cases. In addition to that the revised full guidance, published as recently as October—the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, may not have seen that but it is available—specifies that the police must take seriously non-convictions intelligence and information when assessing a person’s suitability to possess firearms. It also states that any incident of domestic violence or abuse which comes to the attention of the police should result in a review of the current suitability of the certificate holder. Decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, but the guidance is clear that evidence of domestic violence will generally indicate that an application should be refused or, if a certificate has already been issued, that the certificate should be withdrawn. This new guidance is now being applied by police forces.
	The proposed new clause also seeks to introduce a requirement that the police must follow any guidance issued by the Home Secretary when assessing public
	safety. I understand that argument, but I consider that guidance needs to remain just that. It is right that chief officers have the discretion to assess applications for firearms in their local areas, taking into account the merits of each case and the published guide. Chief officers are ultimately responsible for public safety at a local level. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on this. The Government have sought to make decision-making a local responsibility wherever possible. I would not want to undermine this.
	However, we are ensuring that, where national action can support local decision- making, it does. We are working with the national policing lead for firearms licensing to ensure that police have a more detailed awareness and understanding of the Home Office guide. The College of Policing will also be publishing authorised professional practice on firearms licensing, which will complement and cross-refer to our guidance. I believe that this is the way forward. In order to assess standards, HMIC has carried out a scoping exercise on how firearms licensing is conducted in practice, and we will use the findings from the exercise to drive up consistency of decision-making across the country.
	I turn to the second part of the proposed new clause, which seeks to introduce a legal requirement for the Secretary of State to consult all chief police officers before revising the licence fees so that they achieve full cost recovery. Noble Lords should be reassured that consultation with the police is integral to the fee-setting process and we fully accept the need to consider the impact of licensing on police resources. That is why a new online licensing system is being introduced, cutting the administrative burden of a paper-based system. Primary legislation is not required to make this happen. Until we have driven out the inefficiencies in the current paper-based approach to the licensing function, it would not be appropriate to raise the fees fourfold in order to achieve a “one giant step” full cost recovery. The current fees and licensing structure has remained the same for a long time and—we all accept—needs to be reviewed. It is extremely important that we achieve a balance between an efficient system and a proper fee level. For this reason, we are considering what level firearms licensing fees should be over the long term, once these efficiencies have been made. I hope that, having demonstrated to the noble Baroness that we have made considerable progress on these issues, she will be persuaded that further legislation is unnecessary and in a position to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, I would love to have been persuaded by the Minister, because the only reason we brought this amendment forward is that the current system is not working. If it were, there would be no need for such an amendment, so it is clear that we are extremely concerned. I was interested in the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on the case of Michael Atherton; he said that existing legislation was adequate. I tell him that there are a number of reasons why Mr Atherton should not have had a firearms licence, perhaps most crucially his history of domestic violence. The police wanted to refuse his application, but they were given legal advice that they did not have the grounds to refuse. That is part of the
	problem: it indicates the change in the law that is needed. Discretion can be very difficult for police officers when they are getting legal advice that, if they use that discretion, they will be challenged in courts. That is one of the reasons we have brought this forward. I understand the concerns on mental illness, and I would never suggest for a moment that anybody who has had a mental illness should not be able to hold a licence. I think, however, that there should be a check on people who have had a mental illness who could be a danger to themselves or others; where it is coupled with domestic violence, for example, then there is a case.
	I am also rather surprised by the Minister’s issue on full cost recovery, because I do not think that that principle is applied to other areas of full cost recovery. It does not really explain to me why a fisherman pays so much more to have a licence or why that licence is so much more expensive than a firearms licence.
	In the light of the debate today I will take away the Minister’s comments and look at them in Hansard, and for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 56MD withdrawn.
	Clause 100: Offence of possessing firearm for supply etc
	Amendment 56ME not moved.
	Clause 100 agreed.
	Clause 101 agreed.
	Amendment 56MF
	 Moved by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
	56MF: After Clause 101, insert the following new Clause—
	“Possession of firearms by persons previously convicted of crime
	(1) In section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968 (possession of firearms by persons previously convicted of crime), before subsection (3) there is inserted—
	“(2C) Where—
	(a) a person has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three months or more, and
	(b) the sentence is suspended under section 189 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003,
	the person shall not have a firearm or ammunition in his possession at any time during the period of five years beginning with the second day after the date on which the sentence is passed.”
	(2) In section 58(2) of that Act (saving for antique firearms), for “Nothing in this Act” there is substituted “Apart from—
	(a) section 21 and Schedule 3, and
	(b) any other provision of this Act so far as it applies in relation to an offence under section 21,
	nothing in this Act”.
	(3) Where—
	(a) a person is in possession of a firearm or ammunition immediately before the day on which subsection (1) comes into force,
	(b) by reason of a sentence imposed before that day, subsection (1) would (but for this subsection) make the person’s possession of the firearm or ammunition subject to a prohibition under section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968, and
	(c) the person’s possession of the firearm or ammunition immediately before that day is authorised by a certificate within the meaning given in section 57(4) of that Act,
	the prohibition does not apply while the certificate remains in force.”

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, the Government remain committed to strengthening the system of firearms control where necessary in order to protect people from harm. We have identified two loopholes in the Firearms Act 1968 that we are taking the opportunity provided by this Bill to address.
	The first change is in response to a recommendation made by the Home Affairs Select Committee in 2010. The committee recommended that persons with suspended sentences should be prohibited from possessing firearms in the same way as those who have served custodial sentences. The Government have accepted that recommendation, and subsection (1) of the new clause will ensure that the same prohibition applies to people who have suspended sentences.
	A person who has served a custodial sentence of between three months and three years cannot possess a firearm for five years after the date of their release. For the purposes of suspended sentences, this prohibition will start from the second day after the date of sentence rather than the date of release. This is because a person with a suspended sentence will not be in custody from the date of sentence, so the prohibition needs to begin almost immediately. We have said the second day after the date of sentence so that, if the person does have a firearm, they are not instantly in breach of the law upon receiving their suspended sentence. In effect, they may have around 24 hours to sell the firearm or transfer ownership of it to someone else.
	I should say, however, that this requirement on a person given a suspended sentence immediately to divest themselves of any firearms is subject to the transitional provision in subsection (3) of the new clause. This provides that a person who has had a suspended sentence imposed, and who holds a firearm or shotgun certificate on the day that the new legislation comes into effect, will be able to continue to possess their firearm or shotgun for the duration of that certificate. This is to ensure that we are not placing any additional burden and bureaucracy on the police by obliging them to go through their records to find certificate holders who have suspended sentences. As I have already said, this is purely a transitional arrangement; it will not apply to anyone given a suspended sentence after commencement.
	The second change, made by subsection (2) of the new clause, will ensure that prohibited persons are prevented from possessing antique firearms. Currently a person with any criminal conviction would be able to possess an antique firearm. Intelligence indicates that there is a growing interest in antique firearms from criminal groups. This amendment will ensure that persons convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to at least three months’ imprisonment, including a suspended sentence, will be prohibited from possessing antique firearms in the UK.
	We believe that closing both these loopholes will strengthen public protection by ensuring that, as the 1968 Act intended, persons convicted of a criminal offence carrying a sentence of at least three months’ imprisonment are prohibited from possessing firearms. Amendment 104 simply makes a consequential amendment to the extent clause. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister said that an offender would be allowed a couple of days’ grace, as it were, to sell or hand over the firearm. If the offender wanted to hand it to someone in the same household, would that person have to have a licence, so that there would be no question of it being kept around on the premises and available unless the licence was already there for someone else?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I am sure my noble friend saw me nodding. That is quite correct.

Lord Rosser: We certainly support these amendments as they address gaps in the legislation and will enable more effective and comprehensive monitoring of firearms licensing. It is interesting to note that the Government’s intention to close loopholes in firearms licensing seems to stop at those on suspended sentences and at tightening regulations on antiquities. Although we agree they are important areas, the Government’s legislation, as we said on the previous amendment, does not extend to other rather more serious areas of activity or to preventing people obtaining a firearms licence. The Government seem to be keen on addressing loopholes in certain aspects of granting firearms licences but not, apparently, in others.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I believe my noble friend Lord Taylor has already dealt with that issue.
	Amendment 56MF agreed.
	Clause 102 agreed.
	Debate on whether Clause 103 should stand part of the Bill.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I intervene very briefly on this to thank the Government for including this clause in the Bill. It will have the effect of ending the present ludicrous and anomalous situation where British Transport Police officers can be selected and trained in the use of firearms, but then have to apply individually for firearms certificates, adding enormously to the bureaucracy through which they have to go and delaying the recruitment of trained officers to serve the British Transport Police. This is a subject I raised first during scrutiny of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill in July 2011 and because nothing had happened by the start of this Session, I introduced a Private Member’s Bill which would have produced this effect. I am delighted to say that I got a letter from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on 21 May saying that my Private Member’s Bill was not necessary because the Government were going to include this provision. Indeed, the words in this new clause exactly follow the words I had in the Private Member’s Bill, so this is my opportunity to say thank you.

Lord Rosser: I assume this is something the British Transport Police wants. I can hardly imagine that it is something the Government are imposing on it. Is this something it has been pressing for some lengthy period or has it been pressing for it only recently?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, indicated that considerable extra burdens have been created for the British Transport Police in undertaking its responsibilities in this direction. We have been made aware of it. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has been a very strong advocate of the issue. I am pleased that the Home Office has been able to respond favourably.
	Clause 103 agreed.
	Amendment 56N
	 Moved by Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
	56N: After Clause 103, insert the following new Clause—
	“Assault on workers in public facing roles
	(1) A person, being a member of the public, who assaults a worker—
	(a) in the course of that worker’s employment, or
	(b) by reason of that worker’s employment,
	commits an offence.
	(2) No offence is committed—
	(a) under subsection (1)(a) unless the person who assaults knows, or ought to know, that the worker is acting in the course of the worker’s employment;
	(b) under subsection (1)(b) unless the assault is motivated, in whole or in part, by malice towards the worker by reason of the worker’s employment.
	(3) In this section—
	“worker” means a person whose employment involves dealing with members of the public, to any extent, but only if that employment involves—
	(a) being physically present in the same place and at the same time as one or more members of the public; and
	(b) interacting with those members of the public for the purposes of the employment; or
	(c) providing a service to either particular members of the public or the public generally,
	“employment” in this context means any paid or unpaid work whether under contract, apprenticeship, or otherwise.
	(4) Evidence from a single source is sufficient evidence to establish for the purpose of subsection (1) whether a person is a worker.
	(5) A person guilty of an offence under this Act is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, Amendment 56N would create a new clause in the Bill. I think it is a key amendment. Since tabling it, I have received expressions of support from all sides of the House. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, in their places. They and others have expressed to me support for this amendment. I have not yet had the support of the Minister. I know that he is a listening Minister—I think it is the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who is going to reply. I know him very well. I bump into him at airports and other places. I know he listens to logical
	argument and is concerned about these issues. I am sure that with a little persuasion we will get some sympathy, if not today then at some later stage.
	I am sure that other Members of this House have been motivated as I have been by stories of shop workers who have been attacked when trying to apprehend shoplifters and effectively doing the work of a policeman. They are surrogate policemen in those instances, yet they get attacked as a result. There have been stories, too, of licensees set upon by teenage thugs for refusing to sell them liquor because they are underage. They may be underage for buying liquor but many of them are big, strapping lads and can inflict serious injuries on shopkeepers. That was the motivation behind the amendment and I will give a few examples and arguments later.
	First, I acknowledge with sincere gratitude the help and support that I have received from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—USDAW—in drafting the amendment and advising on it. Unions sometimes come under attack and receive criticism of one sort or another, which is sometimes apposite, but they really look after their workers in so many ways. When legislation is being considered, our concern is to see what can be done to improve the lot of those workers. I particularly thank Karen Whitefield, a former Member of the Scottish Parliament, who helped with this, and Ruth George, one of the USDAW staff, who helped me greatly.
	This amendment would cover more than just shop workers. It would cover health workers, public transport staff—about whom the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is particularly concerned—local government staff, government agency staff, postal workers, teachers and catering staff; so the coverage is widely spread. In our privileged position in this House, it is sometimes easy for us to be divorced from the problems experienced daily by those on whom we rely for basic goods and services, so I will give some statistics that the union has provided. In 2012 alone, there were 120,000 violent attacks against retail staff throughout the United Kingdom; it is a very widespread problem. The Association of Convenience Stores has also expressed concern about this. In a briefing earlier today, it said that in the past three months more than half of retailers reported being victims of verbal or physical abuse during the course of their work. These are ordinary working people, often earning the minimum wage or little more, who are being attacked for simply doing their jobs and upholding the law of the land.
	Consider for a moment the fact that 30%—nearly a third—of such violent and abusive incidents occur, as I said earlier, when customers are challenged on restricted items such as alcohol or cigarettes; that is, when staff are upholding the laws that we passed. Other such incidents occur when staff confront shoplifters, again when those staff are upholding the laws that we passed.
	The assaults suffered by these workers are especially traumatic. People then have to go back and continue to work each day in the same situation in which they were attacked. Many retail staff report anxiety, panic attacks and a pervasive fear that such an incident will happen again. Such are the conditions under which they work.
	I was given one example of a man in Sunderland out celebrating his lenient sentence—ironically, for a previous assault on someone with learning disabilities—who tried to steal some pork scratchings. He was challenged by a shop worker. First, he racially abused her in front of children and then tore out chunks of her hair. The shopkeeper was left shaking and crying, with her hair on the ground. The offender received as a punishment only a 12-month suspended sentence, effectively getting off. Such decisions do not acknowledge the physical and mental anguish suffered by the victim and do not inspire public faith in the criminal justice system. To make matters worse, there are so many cases that go unprosecuted. Perhaps it comes as no surprise that an USDAW survey showed that 17% of retail staff who had suffered a physical assault at work had not reported it as they believed that nothing would be done.
	What, then, does the amendment do? It sets out to create a specific offence of assaulting someone who works with the public in the course of their employment. At present, doing that is simply one of 19 aggravating factors, and experience of prosecutions and sentencing shows that that is often not enough to see justice done. In far too many instances, because of the laws that currently govern assault in the workplace, the police and the CPS seem to decide that it is just not worth prosecuting people in those cases of common assault, as they will be fined perhaps only £50 at the end of that long procedure.
	If, however, the amendment was passed, it would help to bring such cases to court and ensure that sentencing reflected the seriousness of the crime. By making assault on a public-facing worker a separate offence the amendment would elevate the seriousness of that crime and put it well above the offence of common assault in the sentencing guidelines. That, in turn, would make the range of penalties for offenders higher, thus encouraging a higher number of prosecutions. It would also send a clear message that such behaviour was totally unacceptable and, I hope, have a deterrent effect.
	I advise the Committee that in Scotland similar protective measures for emergency workers have led to a decline in such incidents and to more than 1,000 prosecutions. I hope that the Committee will agree that the time has therefore come to provide shop workers, health workers, public transport staff, local government staff, government agency staff, postal workers, teachers and catering staff with a similar level of protection. If the Government are really on the side of those hard-working people—I know that the Minister has said so on a number of occasions, as have others—they can start by joining with us who support this amendment to give these men and women the peace of mind and support that they deserve. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord has just said. I was moved to speak to the amendment having recently watched the six films on Channel 4 about the staff on First Great Western. It was brought to my attention—although I should have known it—that there was a lady guard or train manager
	on a train going from Paddington to Swansea. She went the whole way and was by herself. The train was invaded by drunks at Paddington, Reading, Swindon, Bristol, Newport and Cardiff. They got off at one place, another lot got on, and they got more and more drunk as the train went on. She had no means of defending herself whatever; I think it was only her good sense of humour that got her through. Other films showed people manning ticket barriers by themselves and being fearfully abused by people who were offering violence and that sort of thing.
	That caused me to wonder about transport workers who work alone. If you are driving a bus in north London on a Friday night—I do not advise you to be a passenger—some people’s behaviour can be quite awful. We expect public servants to take that. As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said, we sit here in comparative safety and peace, but I know from my time on the police authority that going around big cities on Friday and Saturday nights is an appalling position in which to be, especially during the small hours. I suppose that policemen cannot be offended by obscenities and threats of violence, but I am sure that many staff are very much frightened by them.
	When I was coming to your Lordships’ House at the beginning of the week, on Monday, I was standing on the Bakerloo line platform at Paddington, where there was a relatively young lady who was the Bakerloo line duty manager. A man who looked as if he was drunk and had been to the races—the camel coat was the sign—was abusing her with the most awful obscenities, waving a stick and threatening to punch her, and all sorts of things. Yet she was down there in the station, absolutely alone; there was nobody else to whom she could turn for support.
	What I want to know, and what I would like the Minister to mention in his reply, is whether the penalties really fit the crime. Is it enough to fine people £50 when the magistrate or court sits on a Tuesday morning, when everybody is sober and fairly well behaved? There should be an exemplary punishment. I am not in favour of shutting a lot of people up in prison, but there is scope for very substantial periods of community service. If they have to be served on Saturday and Sunday—or, more particularly, on Sunday, clearing up the mess of the night before—it is all well and good. If those people can be taken off the streets for a fair period of time, it would send a message not only to them but to the people with whom they associate.
	In the peaceful town where I live—at least, I think that it is peaceful—fairly recently, a person racially abused a bus driver, assaulted him and broke his glasses. In that case, the court sent him to prison, though not for very long. It needs to be ingrained in people’s minds that if you assault somebody who is doing a public duty, particularly when that person is alone, you need to be dealt with more severely. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will have something to say about how that penalty can be toughened up.

Baroness Coussins: My Lords, I support Amendment 56N. It would be particularly helpful and appropriate for workers in the licensed trade. I currently work with producer companies, but declare an interest as a former chief executive of the Portman Group, where
	I also worked with licensees in both the on-trade and the off-trade. I am aware that vulnerability to assault is a live and worrying issue among this group of people, who have already been flagged up as a group for concern by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. The public is not generally aware that this is one of the issues of concern to people in the licensed trade, because it does not get any attention or media coverage. On the contrary, coverage about alcohol-related violence and anti-social behaviour tends to portray licensees as the bad guys for serving underage customers or drunks, or for provoking violence just by being there. The truth is that only a very small proportion of licensees are guilty of such offences as serving underage customers; the vast majority are scrupulously and professionally operating responsibility schemes such as proof of age ID to abide by the law and do the right thing. Yet, all too often, they are the victims of a backlash by violent customers for doing so.
	The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, referred to the survey from the Association of Convenience Stores, which was conducted only in August this year—so it is very recent and up to date. That survey revealed that 51% of retailers reported being a victim of verbal or physical abuse in the previous three months during the course of their work. When you match that up with the shopworkers’ union survey data, which suggested that refusing to sell age-restricted goods such as alcohol is a flashpoint for violence and abuse in 30% of cases, you can see how important this new measure would be for the licensed trade. Of course, it is not just a problem for the off-trade; the National Pubwatch scheme reports that pub licensees and their bar staff, as well as door staff, face a great deal of hostility when they are just doing their jobs. Indeed, National Pubwatch recently ran a campaign called “Court not Caution” to draw attention to the extent to which assault against their members was often ignored or seen to be dismissed by the police, who often seem to caution people for really quite serious incidents. This is leading to an undesirable loss of confidence in the criminal justice system. In one case a licensee had been smashed in the face with a glass but the offender was simply cautioned—never mind a £50 fine. The licensee subsequently suffered mental trauma and had to leave the trade and her livelihood. I believe the offence proposed by this amendment would be proportionate and consistent with the existing offence of assaulting a police officer and I urge the Government to give it the most serious consideration.

Lord Condon: My Lords, I declare my registered interest in policing. I am sympathetic to the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has moved the amendment and why it has been supported by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. However, I fear the real mischief they and we might seek to address is not the absence of suitable offences but the absence of action by, perhaps, police, prosecutors and sentencers. There is a range of assault offences already on the statute book that is more than adequate to cover the challenges that noble Lords have raised, such as common assault, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm and aggravated assault if there is a racial element.
	There are more than adequate offences on the statute book to deal with this challenge. The real mischief is the absence of action, the overuse of cautioning or the overly lenient sentencing around these offences—

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I understand what the noble Lord is saying but will he accept that there is a specific offence of assault of a police officer, which has higher penalties than ordinary assault? When a shopkeeper is doing effectively the work of a police officer in arresting someone who is shoplifting, should that not be considered in exactly the same way as an attack on a police officer?

Lord Condon: I hear what the noble Lord says but I do not find myself in total agreement with his arguments. He mentioned the experience of Scotland. That was a very laser-like, focused new offence on emergency workers only. I am genuinely sympathetic to the motivation behind this amendment but it is such a broad category of workers, across such a huge range of situations. Apart from the important symbolism of saying, “Here is a new offence”, I fear it would not add practically to improving the situation overall, and I say that with hesitation. The example the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, gave of a licensed worker having their hair pulled out is clearly at least an assault occasioning actual, if not grievous, bodily harm. If there was no action, it is a dire condemnation of the police involved in that particular offence. I am very sympathetic to the motivation but the real mischief is in getting more action carried out, rather than adding more offences.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am afraid I do not take the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Condon, and support very much what my noble friend Lord Foulkes and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, have said. I am particularly pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has talked about public transport workers, who are some of the most vulnerable public servants. They face members of the public, often on their own, in very difficult circumstances.
	I declare an interest as a member of the First Great Western stakeholder board and I can say to the Committee that all of us were very proud of the staff depicted in the television programme to which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred. We, too, were horrified at the thought that women would be in charge of trains, on their own, late at night, travelling to far-flung parts of the United Kingdom and being subjected to the sort of treatment he described. It is unacceptable. The situation might be easier if the trains were policed by officers from the British Transport Police—not armed officers; I spoke about them a moment ago. Just the presence of British Transport Police on the trains has a very significant effect. However, the force is not large enough to be able to police all the trains so there has to be a measure of self-restraint and adequate penalties for people who behave in an unacceptable and violent way towards public servants doing their job properly.
	All too often one finds that members of the public do not want to know when they see these things going on. When fellow passengers have behaved in an anti-social manner on the Underground or the Croydon tram, I have always felt a little nervous about trying to intervene.
	One of my colleagues on the Great Western board attempted to intervene on the District line at Westminster when a man was racially abusing another passenger. The man was completely off his head on drink or drugs. No one came to my colleague’s aid and, when he got off the train, the drunk got off with him and then assaulted him on the platform. As far as I know, no follow-up action has been taken. This is not acceptable. Noble Lords have done the Committee a great service in bringing this amendment before it. I hope that the Minister will take what has been said very seriously.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I understand, and can picture, some of the incidents that have been described. When I used to have to go up to Manchester regularly at weekends, I took to checking whether Manchester United was playing at home and took care not to travel back on trains which might be full of supporters. Having said that, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Condon, on this. I would be very reluctant to make this a new criminal offence and add it to the statute book. Indeed, I would be reluctant to add any new criminal offence to the statute book unless it was absolutely necessary. Will my noble friend say a word about aggravating factors in sentencing? Would this be a matter for sentencing guidelines, which I know are not under the control of the Government given that we have a Sentencing Council? If an offence has been committed in this context, a sentence can be imposed without the need to create a new offence. I take the point that has been made about that. If a new offence were created in this context, the same problems would arise in pursuing a prosecution as arise with existing offences.

Lord Rosser: My Lords, the amendment we are considering, which was moved so ably by my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, would create a specific offence of assault against workers in public-facing roles. Reference has been made to various people who fall in that category such as shop workers, and they also include bus drivers and health workers. The proposed offence would carry a period of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
	Reference has been made to statistics provided by organisations such as the Association of Convenience Stores, USDAW and the British Retail Consortium. The latter estimated that 30,000 attacks on shop staff were reported last year. Women comprise a high percentage of staff in shops, and that is the case with a great many public-facing roles. Given that it is their employment, if they see a potential incident arising it is not particularly easy for them to walk away from the scene.
	It has been argued that there is no need to create a different category of offence. I think that the issue is fairly clear cut. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have expressed the same view on this issue and we wait to hear whether it is shared by the Minister. However, I think a lot of people feel that those who are attacked and assaulted in the course of their employment are entitled to greater protection than might be the case in other circumstances.
	The current sentencing guidelines for assault indicate that an offence committed against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public should be regarded as an aggravating factor adding to the seriousness of the offence. However, as has been said, that is just one of a number of possible aggravating factors. There is a wide range under the sentencing guidelines for common assault offences of this kind.
	We are also aware that many of these assaults do not seem to be reported where they happen in the course of people’s employment, which is what we are talking about. The survey by USDAW, as I think my noble friend Lord Foulkes mentioned, showed that 17% of retail staff who had suffered a physical assault at work had not reported it as they believed that nothing would be done. There is also a feeling among some employees that many cases which are reported are not prosecuted, even where the assailants are known to the police.
	Reference has been made to the separate offences of assaulting police officers in the execution of their duty and, in Scotland only, assaulting emergency service workers. The offence in Scotland in respect of emergency service workers is defined by the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005 and is, I think, subject to a maximum of nine months in prison or a fine of up to £10,000. Prosecutions using that Act have grown year on year since its introduction. There were 324 prosecutions in 2010-11 and, in total, there have been just over 1,100 prosecutions since the Act came into force, with the implementation of the Act raising the profile of assaults on those who provide emergency services.
	The evidence indicates that if we had a separate offence in England and Wales of assaulting public-facing workers—we are talking about people in contact with the public in the course of their employment—with tougher penalties than for common assault, that would increase the likelihood of cases being prosecuted. It would restore what is clearly waning confidence among many public-facing workers that the judicial system will protect them, and it would act as a deterrent, as preliminary evidence from Scotland shows that while the number of prosecutions for assaulting emergency service workers has gone up, the number of such incidents has declined. That suggests that the message may be getting over, but I am afraid that attacking and assaulting people in the course of their employment when they are carrying out that role in direct contact with the public just will not be accepted. There has to be a change in attitude towards assaults of this kind, and I suggest that that can only properly be reflected in making clear that the penalties will be higher than they would be for other kinds of assaults.
	The present arrangements in England and Wales do not appear adequate, as assaulting a public-facing worker in the course of his or her employment is not a separate specific offence and is regarded as being only one of a number of potentially aggravating factors relating to the crime of common assault. The result is that such assaults are not regarded as being much more serious than many other assaults in the way that applies, as it should, to assaults on a police officer in England and Wales and emergency service workers in Scotland.
	If the Government want to assert that this Bill is about putting the victim first, they should recognise that public-facing workers are all too often victims of assault in the course of their employment, and they should accept this amendment, which creates a separate specific offence, with tougher penalties, for assaults of this kind.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I welcome this debate. It is very interesting that the speeches we have heard have all referred to behaviour which the earlier parts of the Bill are designed to address. Often, assaults arise from anti-social behaviour in the first instance. It has been a very useful debate. The Government cannot support the noble Lord’s amendment but perhaps I may explain why. It has been discussed twice in the House of Commons, so it will not come as a surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that I am not in a position to accept it.
	I wholeheartedly share the view of noble Lords that assaults on people whose work brings them into contact with the public are unacceptable. I assure your Lordships that the Government take this matter very seriously. The speeches in this debate reflect our equal concern at the large number of assaults on people serving the public.
	The Government entirely agree that no one should be expected to face violence in the course of their work, particularly when they are serving the public. We have a wide range of people on whom we depend to deliver services—nurses, teachers, police officers and firefighters, to name a few. Assault is wrong and a crime, whoever the victim. Transport workers and shop workers also form part of our essential infrastructure, as do many others whose work brings them into contact with the public. Staff of small shops may be particularly vulnerable because they may need to stay open long hours to make a profit and may operate with minimal staff. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, referred to people who work in the retail drinks industry. It is vital that the criminal justice system treats violence against these essential members of society adequately.
	However, I do not believe that changes to the law, or a new specific offence, are necessary to achieve that. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, articulated that view well. I do not consider the proposed changes would mean more prosecutions or warrant the higher sentences which might follow. For example, I think that noble Lords would accept that if someone is assaulted in their own home and must live with the sense of fear and anxiety that that may cause, that, too, warrants a stiffer sentence. Nor do we believe that a higher sentence would necessarily have a deterrent effect. The evidence on that point is decidedly mixed. There is already a range of offences having general application which criminalise violent behaviour, and which would already apply in the context envisaged by this new clause. Further offences would only complicate the law and make prosecution more complex rather than make it more straightforward. I reiterate: assault is wrong, whoever the victim.
	All cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service by the police are considered under the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Under the code, prosecutors must first be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a
	realistic prospect of conviction, which I think we all understand. In every case where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, prosecutors must go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest, which, again, we would understand. However, the section of the code giving guidance on this public interest test says:
	“A prosecution is also more likely if the offence has been committed against a victim who was at the time a person serving the public”.
	That is in the prosecution’s guidelines and is an important recognition of the point which the amendment seeks to address. If the evidence is there, and the code is satisfied, the CPS will prosecute.
	Finally, mention has been made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee of the sentencing guidelines, which specify that where an assault is committed against someone providing a service to the public, whether in the public or private sector, this is an aggravating factor and so should result in a higher sentence within the current maximum. The Sentencing Council has made clear in its guidance that that phrase includes those who work in shops and the wider retail business sector, which reinforces the way in which the implementation of the law already reflects the concerns of noble Lords on this issue.
	I listened to the speeches made by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, as well as the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. It has been a useful debate. I intend to draw the attention of the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to the terms of the debate because it reinforces the message that we take this issue seriously in this House as well as within government. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, the one point on which I totally agree with the Minister is that it has been a useful debate. I am really grateful for the eloquent and powerful support that the amendment has received from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lord Faulkner—before he was elevated to his position as Deputy Chairman—and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins.
	I am deeply disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Condon, who eloquently argued the case that there should be a special offence of assault of a police officer, does not agree that that should also apply to shop workers who are effectively apprehending criminals on behalf of the police. They are doing the same job as the police are doing and ought to have the same kind of treatment.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: May I explain that particular discrepancy? We do not ask of people in their normal employment that they place themselves in positions of danger in dealing with potentially violent incidents. We do ask that of the police. That is why all Governments through time have conceded that a special task is imposed on serving officers of the police in the conduct of their duty. That is the reason for that special offence.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: But shopkeepers and others are put in the position where they are not able to get away, as my noble friend Lord Rosser said. They are doing this in the course of their duty and their employment. They are apprehending shoplifters. That is what some shop workers are trained to do. They know they have to do that as part of their responsibility. They are doing the work, effectively, of a police officer. We can come back to that.
	The Minister said that this has not been agreed on two occasions in the House of Commons so there should be no surprise that he will not accept it here. But this is a revising Chamber. What are we here for if not to consider what comes from the Commons and make suggestions, proposals and amendments? I hope that that argument will not be used completely as a barrier, otherwise we might as well all go home.
	My noble friend Lord Rosser underlined this issue when he said again and again that we are talking about people who, in the course of their work, cannot walk away. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that she avoided the trains back from Manchester on which there were football supporters because she did not want to be assaulted. With respect, she can avoid those trains, but the workers on those trains cannot avoid them. They have to be there to run the trains and collect the tickets. That is the difference, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who has tabled a lot of amendments to the Bill, will consider that carefully.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Would the noble Lord consider an assault on the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on a train to be less severe than an assault on someone employed to work on the train? In effect, the noble Lord seeks to introduce a special measure for someone who is assaulted in the course of their work. My argument is that assault is wrong; it is a crime whoever is the victim. Let us keep it simple and not complicate this with what people are doing at the particular time they are assaulted.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I am not saying that. It would probably be even more heinous if the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was attacked. However, as she has told us, she can avoid those trains on a Saturday afternoon: the workers on the trains cannot. I do not want to prolong the debate as there are other important amendments.
	Having heard the arguments, I am happy, between now and a later stage, to consider, with my noble friends on the Front Bench, the unions and others, what the Minister has said, particularly his helpful point about drawing this debate to the attention of the police and Crown Prosecution Service. The amendment might be revised or, as the noble Lord, Lord Condon, suggested, we might look at narrowing it down to deal with people in particular circumstances. I hope I will have the opportunity to bring it back on Report and test the view of the whole House. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 56N withdrawn.
	Amendment 56NA
	 Moved by Lord Rosser
	56NA: After Clause 103, insert the following new Clause—
	“Control of new psychoactive substances
	(1) Any person supplying, or offering to supply, a synthetic psychoactive substance including but not restricted to—
	(a) a powder;
	(b) a pill;
	(c) a liquid; or
	(d) a herbal substance with the appearance of cannabis, which is likely to be consumed by a person for the purpose of causing intoxication,
	will be subject to a synthetic psychoactive product order prohibiting its supply.
	(2) Any subsequent breach of that order will be an offence.
	(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
	(4) This section does not apply to alcohol, tobacco or any drug currently scheduled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or the Medicines Act 1968.”

Lord Rosser: My Lords, Amendment 56NA and the proposed new clause seek to stop the high street trade in what are known as legal highs. Head shops are retailers that have traditionally sold material and devices relating to the cannabis culture. In the past five years, these outlets have mostly diversified their range of products to include legal highs, which are psychoactive substances that have not been assessed for their harms by the relevant authorities and mimic the effects of illegal drugs such as cocaine, cannabis and ecstasy.
	It is estimated that there are around 260 of these head shops, located in major cities and some of the more affluent suburbs. A further report has indicated that legal highs are also on sale in such diverse places as shoe repair shops, petrol stations and takeaway restaurants. Since 2009, the volume of trade and number of outlets in the United Kingdom selling new psychoactive substances has risen considerably. There has yet to be any significant legal challenge to their questionable operations, but the current law does not really provide for this eventuality. Local authorities that have attempted to prosecute sellers under consumer protection legislation have failed. To evade prosecution through the Medicines Act 1968, the legal highs are invariably labelled “research chemicals” which are “not for human consumption”.
	The Office for National Statistics has estimated that the number of deaths from new psychoactive substances has risen from 29 in 2011 to 52 in 2012. The Scottish Government’s drug-related death statistics estimate 47 legal high deaths in Scotland in 2012. The reported effects vary depending on drug type, but include symptoms such as anxiety, paranoia, delusions, psychotic episodes, irregular heartbeat, chest pains, hyperthermia and seizures. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime estimated the number of young people aged between 15 and 24 in the United Kingdom who have taken a legal high at 670,000 or 8.2%. That figure is the highest in Europe. It is estimated that the number of websites selling new psychoactive substances in Europe rose from 170 in 2010 to 690 in 2012. About half of these are based in the United Kingdom.
	Both ACPO and Police Scotland have expressed support for introducing some enforcement measures against head shops. Legal highs often have an inconsistent set of ingredients; there is no regulation on how they are produced and the substances have, in effect, no status. The manufacturers, often in China or India, are always a step ahead of the law and when any temporary ban is signed, new untested drugs with similar properties come on the market within days. However, the reality is that only three substances have been subject to temporary banning orders in the past two years. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction identified 76 new substances in 2012 and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime report for 2013 recognised that more legal drugs are available for purchase than are listed in the UN conventions on drugs.
	Amendment 56NA is based on the existing Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985, which prevents the sale of glues and butane to minors. That law has been successful over some years in reducing the number of deaths from volatile substances. Under the provisions in the amendment, a court would issue a civil order against a particular shop, listing the products identified by trading standards officers which appeared to be psychoactive, synthetic and intoxicating, and prohibiting their supply. The amendment specifically excludes medicines, alcohol and tobacco. Any breach of the synthetic psychoactive product order issued to a supplier or retailer would be a criminal offence.
	There is a need to act. The sale of dangerous substances in an everyday retail environment has the effect of normalising their use. It encourages experimentation among minors and exposes more vulnerable people to powerful psychoactive substances. The problem with legal highs is that people wrongly believe that, because they are legal, they must be safe, and having the substances so openly available only reinforces that impression. The reality is that the number of head shops is growing inexorably and nothing appears to be currently in place to prevent that continuing —hence the proposed new clause that we are now debating, which will help to check the substantial increase in the number of shops selling these substances and help to cease the trade in untested psychoactive substances in existing outlets.
	The second amendment in the group aims to probe the Government about the comparative lack of data on the impact of legal highs. The Government need to do more work to assess and understand the impact of legal highs on the resources of the police, the NHS and other agencies and the link to anti-social behaviour, criminality and drug abuse. The proposed new clause in Amendment 56NB addresses this point by requiring the Secretary of State to carry out a review within 12 months of the Bill passing.
	I hope that the Minister, in responding, will recognise that this problem is getting worse. It has not stabilised: it is getting worse and doing so fairly quickly. Although the Minister may well tell us everything that the Government have done—I am sure the Government have been seeking to do things to address the problem—the reality is that whatever the Minister will tell us has been done has not had the impact desired. The problem is growing and we need action now. This amendment
	constitutes that action and stands a chance of being an effective way of addressing an increasingly serious problem.

Baroness Meacher: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 56NA, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for tabling it. We need government and, indeed, all political parties to get together to try to create a safer world for our young people while new psychoactive substances are so readily available to them. The amendment has merit on two grounds: first, it seeks to remove these substances from the shop window, as one might put it, which has to be helpful; and secondly, a feature of the amendment is that it focuses exclusively on suppliers and does not seek to criminalise the users of these substances. Those are two important points in favour of the amendment.
	However, we need to be aware of some of the potential problems with the amendment. My only qualification for speaking today is that I chaired the APPG inquiry into new psychoactive substances, which received evidence from all the major governmental and non-governmental organisations involved in this field, as well as academics and those working on the front line, who really understand the implications of policies and perhaps their ineffectuality. As a result of that work, I have a number of concerns.
	The first is the absence of proportionality or logic in the proposal. We have to accept, albeit reluctantly, that a sizeable proportion of young people will use drugs that may harm them. Our aim must surely be to reduce the incidence of addiction to any dangerous drug and, in particular, to reduce addiction to the most dangerous drugs, whether legal or illegal. We also need to reduce as far as possible the risk of a young person having a single dose of a substance that can cause death or serious injury.
	Our drug policies must face reality. We will not stamp out drug use through bans and punishment. Our only hope is to create a rational system which makes abundantly clear to our young people those substances that are seriously dangerous, those that cause medium harm and those with short-term and relatively mild ill effects. We have not even begun to go down the road of proportionality in our drugs policy and, unfortunately, this amendment does not adopt this essential principle. Some other countries have done so, with impressive results, and even the US is beginning to take steps in a rational direction.
	My comments on this amendment reflect my increasing conviction of the need for proportionality in our drug policies, combined with extensive information, education, treatment and psychological support for those who need it. Only with such an approach will we have a chance to achieve a safer drugs policy.
	We need young people to respect the law. If the law is an ass, young people will get round it or simply ignore it. The amendment does not offer a proportionate response to these substances. There is also a lack of logic in the amendment, if I may put it that way; for example,
	“a herbal substance with the appearance of cannabis”,
	would be banned under this amendment. Why those particular herbal substances? They may in fact present a far lower risk and be far preferable for the health of young people than legal drugs such as tobacco and alcohol, and certainly the many other drugs that are available.
	The Angelus Foundation, the organisation behind this amendment, argues in its briefing that the ban should apply only to synthetic psychoactive substances. It accepts that head shops have sold a number of substances that are non-addictive, do not cause significant social problems or are mild in their effects. It rightly says that such substances should not be caught by this amendment. But why should synthetic substances of similarly low risk and lack of social consequences be banned? Young people will very quickly realise the inconsistency in the situation.
	Turning to a different issue, I find myself in agreement with the Home Office concern that the amendment completely bypasses the ACMD—the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. That august body of scientists should be at the heart of drug policy-making, assessing risks and actually making decisions—if I had my way —on the classes of different drugs. If we had scientists making these decisions, we would arrive at a more sensible set of policies.
	Another and quite different concern is that if this amendment were passed it might be seen as a solution to the problem of NPS. Of course, a proportion of these young people will immediately go to the web if they cannot get what they want from the local head shop, and that proportion could be very close to 100%. Young people know all about the web—far more than I do—and it would not take them many minutes to realise that that is all they have to do to get what they want.
	A very different question is whether the authors of the amendment explored the implications for research of this measure. Already, serious psychopharmacological researchers are having incredible difficulty obtaining the substances they need to undertake their research.
	Also, have those supporting the amendment considered its cost implications? Trading standards representatives who gave evidence to our APPG on Drug Policy Reform made clear that if they are to take responsibility for policing head shops, they will need money to do it. That money has to cover the testing of those substances. It is no good their picking up a substance from a head shop if they have no idea what it is and no money to test it.
	In conclusion, I applaud Angelus for its untiring work to try to reduce the access of young people to dangerous psychoactive substances. I welcome the attempt to reduce the risks to our young people of NPS. Whatever is agreed on the amendment, I hope that all political parties will work together to achieve improved policies to deal with the considerable risks presented to our young people by new psychoactive substances.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I well understand the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. For instance, I recognise what I can think of only as collusion between sellers and buyers of substances labelled bath salts, plant food, and so on. The noble Baroness says that this is her only qualification—come
	on, it is some qualification. We are very lucky to have her explain her point so clearly and, to my mind, so persuasively. As she says, trading standards authorities are as concerned as everybody else and struggling to find a way to deal with this. Has the noble Lord had comments on the proposal from the Trading Standards Institute?
	Like the noble Baroness, the points that occurred to me, which I will not repeat but simply support, are: is this risk-based, is it evidence-based, will it bring the law into disrepute, does it recognise the psychology of the consumer? Chemists in China will stay ahead of the game and will use the internet. Of course we have to be smart, but we have to be smart differently, not try to beat them in the way that they are working.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, the problems of new psychoactive substances are real and perilous. My noble friend Lord Rosser mentioned the number of recorded deaths. It is simple for an organic chemist to synthesise a new psychoactive substance to mimic the effect of a substance that has been banned. We understand that, across Europe, about 250 new psychoactive substances have been introduced in recent years. The Angelus Foundation, which originally proposed the new clause, has counted at least 250 head shops offering to provide such substances on the shopping streets of this country. There are other outlets, as has been mentioned, all of which succeed at the moment in evading existing regulation.
	It follows that the buyers of those substances have no information about the composition, toxicity or purity of what they are buying. It is not only from the head shops that those substances can be obtained. Increasingly, they are being bought over the internet. Social networking spreads the news of the arrival of a new substance, and it is not at all uncommon for party invitations, distributed through social networking, to contain links to the suppliers of such substances.
	The situation is very dangerous. The substances are cheap to produce and pretty cheap to buy. Sadly, young people are willing to take extraordinary risks with their own health and safety. A survey by Mixmag of club drug users found that no fewer than 25% of respondents said that they were willing to purchase and consume any white powder, unidentified.
	The Angelus Foundation is right to have highlighted this issue and to have dedicated itself to improving the education available to people about new psychoactive substances. I pay tribute to Maryon Stewart, who created the Angelus Foundation following the tragic death of her daughter, who had consumed a new psychoactive substance. Maryon Stewart was impressive when she gave evidence to the inquiry which the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, chaired on this issue.
	However, with genuine great respect for the Angelus Foundation, and of course for my noble friends Lady Smith and Lord Rosser, I believe that this proposed new clause is not the right way to approach the problem. Attacking head shops in the way that it envisages might indeed succeed in driving them out of business, but my worry is that it would drive the people who are purchasing these substances into the arms of nastier criminals—into the danger and squalor of engaging
	with gang-related street dealers in car parks and alleyways. If they are not already using the internet, and I suspect that most of them will be, it will of course drive them into its seductions and dangers, perhaps particularly those of the dark web. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction reported in its 2013 annual statement that it has identified 693 different internet outlets offering new psychoactive substances for sales. Actually, what I think will happen is that the internet will drive the head shops out of business, just as it has driven record shops and book shops out of business. This is not a measure that would enable us to police the net.
	The Angelus Foundation has been candid that its purpose in proposing this new clause is to ban the sale of new psychoactive substances but all the evidence from 50 years of prohibition is that banning substances does not stop trafficking in drugs or people using drugs. In fact, it drives innovation; as one avenue is closed, another is opened. Prohibition has been an engine of crime. It has been counterproductive and has produced appalling consequences.
	There are also civil liberties implications in this proposed new clause. Since an earlier version was debated in another place, it has been revised to require a lower standard of proof. The proposition is now that if a court is satisfied merely on the balance of probabilities, and not beyond reasonable doubt, it may make an order against a head shop listing products which appear to trading standards officers to be psychoactive and synthetic, and to have been bought for the purpose of intoxication. If the proprietor is unable to demonstrate that that is not the case, he will be liable to a prison sentence of six months or a level 5 fine. It is inconceivable that in this country we should legislate to imprison people because it appears to an official of the state that such and such is the case and the accused is unable to disprove the allegation. We have not seen legislation like this since the days of the Warsaw Pact in eastern Europe. It would be wrong for us to lower our standard of justice.
	I am also bemused to note that the expectation, according to the Angelus Foundation briefing, is that consultation should follow once the legislation is on the statute book. That would be Alice in Wonderland legislation. I had not hitherto seen my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon as the Red Queen, or my noble friend Lord Rosser as the Red King.
	The Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 is, I suggest, a bad model for legislation to deal with the problem that we are addressing. It was designed to ban the sale of glue or lighter fluid for purposes of intoxication, but we know what glue and lighter fluid are. The very difficulty is that we do not know what these new psychoactive substances are, so how would the court establish the balance of probabilities? Would it be on the basis of guesswork or on the say-so of a trading standards officer? Justice, like policy, ought to be based on evidence. One of the great difficulties that we are facing is that the infrastructure for forensic testing in this country is entirely inadequate. We have not invested as we needed to do in it. That is a point that we made in the all-party group’s report. The result is that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, temporary
	class drug orders and the whole apparatus of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs are underresourced and unable to deal with a problem of the scale, complexity and pace of change that we have to deal with in respect of new psychoactive substances.
	Therefore, what should we do? I believe that the most promising approach to this very serious problem has been developed in New Zealand. In 2011, the New Zealand Law Commission made recommendations on how to deal with new psychoactive substances. It took the view that universal prohibition would be unacceptable on cultural grounds and inconsistent with the principles of a free society, as well as being impractical. It recommended that a would-be supplier of a new psychoactive substance should have the opportunity, paying for scientific research, to show that the substance would be of limited harm and to seek the approval of a regulatory body to introduce it to the market. They were very specific that no sale should be permitted to minors.
	In 2012, the New Zealand Health Minister, Peter Dunne, accepted the recommendations of the New Zealand Law Commission and its Parliament has legislated to create a legally regulated market in synthetic drugs. Having considered the matter, they believed that this was safer than continuing with the dangers of an unregulated market. To date, I understand that 15 new psychoactive substances have been submitted for approval under this process.
	I believe that we are driven to conclude that the way to protect our young people and our society as a whole from the dangers of new psychoactive substances is to legalise and regulate them: not the most dangerous of them, but a range of them. This is less dangerous than persisting with a policy of prohibition. The reality is that people are going to get hold of these substances; young people will always experiment, always take risks and always challenge authority. These drugs are dangerous, and it is for that very reason that they ought to be regulated. If a limited range of psychoactive substances—the safer ones—were legally available, with their purity controlled and with trustworthy advice as to their usage, people would be less attracted to taking risks with harder drugs or with unknown, new psychoactive substances. There would be less incentive for producers and retailers to introduce new drugs on to the market.
	Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher—who is my friend— emphasised, we would need to accompany any such policy with a wholly improved strategy for education and information. To me, it is sad and a real worry that the education department seems to be so largely disengaged from the whole issue of drugs. It lays minimal obligations on schools in respect of drugs education. It shrugs its institutional shoulders in saying that it does not monitor the programmes or resources used by schools in drugs education. We need to do very much better in schools, but the reality is that people who want to understand these drugs will go to websites such as the excellent one created by the Angelus Foundation, whynotfindout.org, or others created by people who are experienced in this field and want to protect people from the harms that drugs may cause, such as DrugScope.
	I share the deep alarm that has motivated my noble friends in proposing this new clause and the deep concern of the Angelus Foundation, parents and all of us, but I do not think that this proposed new clause is the right way to go.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, to explain the background to the comments that I am about to make, as most noble Lords will know I was a police officer for over 30 years and have seen things from the enforcement side. However, a few months ago a former partner of mine in his early 40s, to whom I was still very close, took an overdose of an illegal drug and died. Hopefully, noble Lords will realise that I am not biased one way or the other on this issue, bearing in mind recent events.
	Obviously, I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue, and I therefore welcome the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. However, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee that this is not the way to reduce harm. My professional experience has taught me that young people in particular—though, as I say, my former partner was not particularly young, but then everything is relative—take no account of whether or not a drug is illegal, particularly bearing in mind the discredit that has been cast on the system of drug classification, where very harmful drugs are in a lower category and far less harmful drugs are in a higher one. They certainly do not pay any attention to what class any illegal drug might be. As far as I see it, the evidence that cannabis use has been reducing, for example, is the result of information in the media about potential harmful medical effects of cannabis. That is what has really had an effect on people’s attitude towards that drug, not whether or not it is illegal or indeed what class of illegality it is in.
	This is a very difficult issue to deal with. As we know, particularly with regard to legislating, all that the manufacturers do is slightly alter the compound whenever a drug is made illegal, as previous speakers have said. Clearly we need to allow our young people to know exactly what the effects of these sorts of substances are and try to persuade them not to take them, bearing in mind that most young people pay no attention to whether or not they are illegal. We should therefore put far more emphasis on and resources into education and far less into enforcement, let alone into making yet more substances illegal.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity for debate. The quality of speeches that we have had has shown that the House is good at debating issues of this type; indeed, my noble friend Lord Ahmad took a debate only recently on this subject. It is a good thing that we are reviewing policy in this area. As the noble Lord has explained, these new clauses seek to address the open sale of new psychoactive substances.

Lord Maxton: On that point, I noticed that the title of the new clause says “new”, but that word does not appear anywhere else in the amendment. Does the title therefore take precedence over everything else?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I think that the intention of the new clause is to deal with the problem of novelty, and indeed much of the debate has been concerned about novelty and the ability and inventiveness of the producers of these drugs. I will check the wording of the amendment in that regard but, as I am not seeking to make it a part of the Bill, it is not a concern of mine.
	Many of these new products are often sold under misleading descriptions but of course are ultimately marketed for the purposes of intoxication, and there are potential harms to our fellow citizens from the fact that they are freely available. The first amendment builds on the provisions of the intoxicating substances supply legislation that previously led to the successful prosecution of a legal high supplier. It is also similar to the legislative proposals adopted in Ireland and Poland. Similar new clauses were tabled by the Opposition in the House of Commons and Jeremy Browne, who was then the Minister responsible for drugs policy, set out the Government’s approach to new psychoactive substances. He also referred to the Home Office’s international comparators study of alternative approaches to drug issues such as legal highs, which we now expect to complete soon to help inform our response.
	The Government have been far from inactive in this area of our drug strategy. We are working with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, monitoring the emergence of and trends in new psychoactive substances and updating our legislation following advice on the related health and social harms where appropriate. We are also supporting law enforcement agencies to use the full force of the law where officers suspect that head shops are selling controlled drugs or substances containing them. That is often the case because hundreds of these substances are already controlled drugs in the UK.
	Last week, we initiated a concerted programme of enforcement activity to disrupt the market in new psychoactive substances, restricting their availability on our streets and targeting the criminals behind the supply of these substances. As part of this, police have been visiting head shops across the country to send out a clear message that so-called legal highs cannot be assumed to be safe or legal. We are also working with prisons to raise awareness of the risks of legal highs with both prisoners and visitors. The UK Border Force and the National Crime Agency are also stepping up action to stop new psychoactive substances at the borders.
	The noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Howarth of Newport, originally raised the issue of what we are doing in terms of education. We are doing all we can to inform young people, prevent them from taking drugs in the first place and intervene early with those who start to develop problems. We want all young people to have access to education and information on drugs so that they are aware of the harms and are able to make informed choices and resist peer pressure. The Home Office ran a communication activity from July to October this year which targeted 13 to 19 year-olds contemplating using legal highs, and we are going to consider using similar campaigns in future.

Lord Howarth of Newport: Has the Minister held discussions with his counterpart Ministers in the education department? The evidence given to the Home Affairs Select Committee was that the majority of schools provide drug education only once a year or less. As far as the national curriculum goes, they are required to provide some sort of drug education within the science curriculum, but that is just about it. PHSE has only a toehold in school education. This is not the right way to help young people develop the resilience and capacity to take their own responsible decisions. A great deal more needs to be done in our schools.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I note the noble Lord’s point. I assure him that communication across government on this is very vigorous. I am sure he will agree that schools are not the only place where you can communicate with young people. We live in an age where there may be other less formal ways of conveying this message. I think the Government are right to see issues such as this also in those terms. I hope he will understand that our strategy is multifaceted; it is not just the single point that he made. The legal high trade is very resilient. It is inventive. There is no silver bullet for dealing with it. We need to ensure that whatever we are doing is equally resilient and effective.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howarth may have been referring to a meeting of the Home Affairs Select Committee last week, at which my colleague Norman Baker, who is the Minister now responsible for drug policy, advised the committee that he is particularly keen that we look at all the options for tackling new psychoactive substances and to learn from other countries in that regard—the noble Lord referred to New Zealand, for example—and that is what we are doing. However, even though this area is a cause for concern, caution needs to be exercised before we take any further steps. The possible unintended consequences need to be fully understood. That is why I think that the speeches of my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Paddick, along with the excellent speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, demonstrate that they are right to be concerned that the amendment and this new clause are deficient.
	With this in mind, the move away from an evidence-based approach to drug harm that Amendment 56NA could imply is not one that the Government can take lightly; I think noble Lords were right to point that out. We are committed—as indeed we should all be committed—to ensuring that our legislative response continues to restrict the supply of harmful new psychoactive substances, both in our communities and online, by providing UK law enforcement with robust and practical powers to tackle this trade.

Baroness Meacher: The Minister said that the way forward is more enforcement. Is he aware of the view of the UK Border Agency, ACPO and others that the legal framework and the enforcement behind it is actually not fit for purpose to deal with the particular problem of “new psychoactive substances”, as they are called—although in fact they are often not new?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Enforcement is, of course, part of the issue. If we decide that we need to restrict the supply, we will need to have the methodologies of
	enforcement. However, I think that I have made it clear that having evidence and information is equally important to underpin any legislative background against which we are operating. There is much going on in this area and I make a commitment to keep noble Lords informed of developments. With that in mind, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Rosser: I will ask the Minister to clarify one point before I make my main response. Did he say that officers, whether police or trading standards officers, had been going around the country to head shops and warning them of the error of their ways—those were not the Minister’s exact words but that was the general thrust of them—and that those officers were also saying to them that legal action could be taken against them? Or were they just going around and chatting to them, giving no indication at all that they had any powers to do anything?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I cannot recall any such reference in what I said.

Lord Rosser: I am sorry if I misunderstood. I thought that there had been a reference to such approaches being made. I will make one particular point on that, which is really a follow-up to the point that I just made, even if I misunderstood what the Minister had said.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I have come across the point referred to by the noble Lord. The police have indeed been visiting head shops across the country to send out the message that legal highs cannot be assumed to be safe or legal. I think that is a reasonable thing to say. It is part and parcel of the communication that the people who are engaged in this trade need to be aware of their social responsibilities and the legal risk in what they are doing. It is a reasonable task to ask of police, who are enforcing the law in this area.

Lord Rosser: I have no problem at all with the police going around and doing that. I was asking: if the police are going around doing that—I have no problem with it; it is a good idea and they should be doing it—are they able to say to those they meet who are involved in that particular trade that any legal action can be taken against them?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: If the drugs are illegal, clearly that is exactly the position, and that is the point they make. The assumption those people may have, that some of the formulated chemicals that they are selling are legal or safe, may well be wrong. The noble Lord will know that some chemicals on the list of banned substances under recent legislation—last time we brought in 10 proscribed formulations—may well be present in products that those people may not be aware are illegal.

Lord Rosser: One of the main points is whether those are illegal drugs, in which case action can be taken. That is one of the issues around many of those psychoactive substances. If the noble Lord says that the police are going around and saying that some of
	those substances may well not be legal, can he tell me whether any prosecutions are forthcoming as a result of those visits?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Certainly, if people were found to be in possession of illegal drugs, an offence would have been committed and the opportunity to prosecute undoubtedly exists. The point is that there are people in this business who assume that what they are doing is beyond the scope of the law. We seek to make sure that they are properly informed of the fact that there is no such hiding place. The law is there to protect the citizen, and the current and future drugs legislation is designed to do just that—to make it clear to them that there is no hiding place for them.

Lord Rosser: If the Minister had been able to give me some assurance that he felt that action could be taken through the law against people involved in supplying those particular substances, I would feel greatly relieved. However, I have listened to what the Minister has had to say and there have been an awful lot of mays, ifs and maybes, and nothing specific. He is not saying that, as a result of looking at current legislation, the Home Office and the Government are satisfied that action can now be taken under a particular Act. My understanding and the information I have—the Minister may well tell me that I am wrong—is that some local authorities have attempted to take action under existing legislation but have not been successful. However, if the Minister is saying that there is legislation under which we can take action against those people in relation to those substances, I would be greatly relieved. However, I would like to know what that legislation is and what action is being taken.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I promised to keep Peers informed of the outcome of that campaign, and will do so. However, it is quite clear that with some of those psychoactive drugs—I believe that I debated that issue with the noble Lord in Grand Committee, when we passed that legislation—the truth is that people may be dealing in those chemicals who are unaware of the illegality of their actions. I will keep noble Lords informed and I hope that we can move on.

Lord Howarth of Newport: Is it not a great difficulty that neither the police nor trading standards officers have the means to test those substances and find out what they are?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: They have access to the means to test the substances, which is a reasonable enough basis on which to alert the people running those premises that they might be dealing in illegal drugs.

Lord Rosser: Obviously, I shall withdraw my amendment. I feel that the Minister seems rather nearer to me than virtually all other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate in feeling that legal action might be possible and have some value.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: We have identified harmful legal formulations. The noble Lord sat with me while we discussed that in Grand Committee. This House has approved statutory instruments that identify those substances. We are quite clear that our war on dangerous
	drugs will include the restriction of supply of harmful psychoactive drugs. It does that at present and will do so in the future. However, the development that the proposed new clause seeks to put into the Bill takes this further than what we consider to be our current policy. We ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment because we are working in that area. My honourable friend Norman Baker is likely to produce his views on this matter shortly. I have committed to informing noble Lords on that basis.

Lord Rosser: I appreciate the Government’s position, which is that if any of those substances sold contained controlled drugs, they would expect the retailers to be prosecuted. That is what Norman Baker was quoted as saying in the press. However, the issue is that many of the substances involved are not illegal, for all the reasons that we have been discussing. That is one of the reasons why we have the problem that we have. I am aware that the Government are not entirely unsympathetic to the issue of law enforcement, even if there has not been much support for that idea from anywhere else in your Lordships’ House today. I am referring to the Government’s approach, which we are dealing with. When I say “legal enforcement”, I mean as per the amendment that I put forward. I do not suggest that people are suggesting that legal action should never be taken.
	In the Written Statement to which the noble Lord recently referred, which was published towards the end of November, he quoted the Minister for Crime Prevention, Norman Baker, who said that the G8 member states had,
	“identified a need to speak with one voice to source countries, creating a space for dialogue about substances of concern and pressing for domestic controls in source countries and law enforcement cooperation”.—[ Official Report , 26/11/13; col.
	WS
	79
	.]
	I am not entirely sure what “law enforcement cooperation” refers to, although I am not asking the Minister that now.
	I will certainly withdraw the amendment. This has been an interesting debate. I am well aware that I have not had any friends as regards the amendment that I moved. My concern is that there has been a general recognition that there is a problem in this area and that it is getting worse. I do not think that any noble Lord has sought to say anything to the contrary. The real concern must be that we do not spend all our time discussing what to do, not taking any action at all and finding that the problem gets worse and worse, which could happen. Let us hope that that is not the case; I note what the Minister has said about actions they seek to take. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 56NA withdrawn.
	Amendment 56NB not moved.
	Amendment 56NC
	 Moved by Baroness Thornton
	56NC: After Clause 103, insert the following new Clause—
	“Proxy purchasing of tobacco products on behalf of children
	(1) A person commits an offence if he or she buys or attempts to buy a tobacco product or cigarette papers on behalf of a person under the age of 18.
	(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, Amendment 56NC, in the names of my noble friends, makes tobacco proxy purchasing an offence, punishable by a maximum £5,000 fine—the same penalty as for alcohol. It is illegal across the UK to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18. However, it is not an offence for someone to buy tobacco products on behalf of a minor. We believe that that is a significant loophole in our system. Proxy purchasing of alcohol is already illegal across the UK, but that is not the case with tobacco products. That is why we want this to be remedied. Getting someone else to buy on their behalf is one of the chief ways in which young people access tobacco products. Trading Standards has estimated that nearly half, or 46% of underage smokers, regularly get their tobacco from a proxy purchaser. Given the Government’s latest extremely welcome U-turn on plain packaging, I should have thought that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, would be seeking to deal with this issue.
	A study in 2011 found that 53% of occasional smokers and 89% of regular smokers had used proxy sales as a means of accessing tobacco in the previous year. Proxy purchasing tobacco is already illegal in Scotland, under the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, and the Northern Ireland Executive are currently supporting an amendment that would ban it there, too. This would leave England and Wales as the only places in the UK where it is still legal. A law to ban proxy purchasing tobacco products for under-18s has already received public support from the Association of Convenience Stores, which says that it is in favour of a ban on proxy purchasing tobacco products to bring the legislation in line with the purchase of alcohol.
	It is with some disappointment that, during a debate in the tobacco products directive, Jane Ellison, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, said:
	“Many children who smoke get their cigarettes from friends and family, and from other children who share cigarettes in parks and playgrounds. An offence of proxy purchasing would be unlikely to stop family members or friends giving cigarettes to young people”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/13; col. 736.]
	We disagree with her; we think that the evidence clearly reflects that tobacco proxy sales are a means for under-18s obtaining cigarettes and then, as we know, becoming addicted at that young age. That is why we have tabled Amendment 56NC.
	Tobacco proxy sales pose a significant problem. They have a harmful impact on the health of those under 18, for the rest of their lives. We urge the Government to consider our amendment and make proxy purchasing tobacco products on behalf of children an offence, as Scotland has and Northern Ireland is considering doing. I beg to move.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I apologise that I was not present for Second Reading and ask for the forbearance of noble Lords in my intervention at this stage to support my noble friend’s amendment. However, my support comes with a heavy health warning about effective surveillance and enforcement. As president of the Trading Standards Institute, I am aware of this significant problem. As so many thousands of young
	people experience their first steps down the road to smoking addiction, as my noble friend said, it is through that means that that addiction starts.
	Any move to tackle proxy sales of tobacco would get the full support of the trading standards profession, but proper enforcement and adequate surveillance is a great concern to it. A recent study of proxy sales of tobacco found that there was a strong desire from business representatives—and my noble friend referred to this—to see legislation implemented. The Robinson and Amos study of 2010 of young people’s sources of cigarettes and attempts to circumvent underage sales laws concluded that, while there was indeed a problem, more detailed research was needed before further action was taken. It was suggested that regular national smoking surveys should include questions that could capture more accurately the nature and extent of proxy purchases. I feel that this is somewhat cautious, given what we know from a number of surveys about the danger that young people are placed in by this activity. However, I would appreciate the Minister’s views on the suggestion of a more consistent way in which to survey the problem.
	While the Demos think tank report that was out last week, called Sobering Up, studied the very real issue of underage access to alcohol and street drinking, and involved working with Kent trading standards officers, the read-across to tobacco is obvious. Even with legislation, enforcement is the key. The report recommended tackling the growing problem of proxy purchasing through greater community policing of the offence and tougher punishments for those caught. Of course, we are aware that there is an offence of proxy sales of tobacco in Scotland, with fixed penalty notices for both the purchase of tobacco by a young person under the age of 18 years and, separately, for the proxy purchase of tobacco on behalf of a person under 18 years. In Scotland, from April 2011, for the purchase of tobacco by a person under 18, the fixed penalty is £50 and the penalty on prosecution is up to a £200 fine. Also from April 2011, proxy purchases carry a fixed penalty of £200 and up to a £5,000 fine for a penalty on prosecution.
	What research have the Government carried out into the effect of this new legislation in Scotland on proxy sales purchases so far? While many of us have anecdotal evidence, we are now two years down the road from the introduction of this Scottish legislation, and I think that noble Lords who want to support this amendment would agree that government has the provision and means to come up with far more structured evidence. I know that the Scottish legislation is still embedding itself; the Scottish Government’s request is for a softly-softly approach to be taken, especially with the introduction at the same time of the display and vending machines ban this year. But the aim, certainly, of trading standards in Scotland is to work in partnership with retailers to increase compliance with the new law. I am grateful to Veronica McGinley, the trading standards officer for Renfrewshire Council for her thoughts on the Scottish experience so far.
	It has been emphasised to me that there are, of course, real personal safety risks attached to this type of sale, so we are not simply talking about young
	people’s health but their personal safety. In Renfrewshire alone, the recent Scottish Adolescent Lifestyle and Substance Use Survey found that 54% of 13 year-olds and 55% of 15 year-olds reported getting someone else to buy their tobacco for them. More frighteningly, in the case of 35% of 13 year-old regular smokers, this was most likely to be from an adult unknown to them.
	While supporting moves to legislate in principle, we have to be aware that the enforcement of much tobacco control legislation, including the current age of sale, is the responsibility of local authority trading standards officers. There has been a great deal of talk about trading standards officers. I do not think—my noble friend is no longer in his place—that they would necessarily see themselves as cold war warriors: they are very much into partnership and encouragement these days. However, enforcement is extremely challenging given the massive reductions in staff and budgetary allocations that trading standards departments have faced in the past three years up and down the country. We have heard very recently of a local authority which has proposed reducing its trading standards department by 80% over the next two years. This is very serious if we are talking about the proper enforcement of serious legislation. The requirement also for a Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act authorisation in each case may pose a significant barrier to the testing and enforcement of future legislation. Can the Minister say what further assistance the Government envisage in terms of resource allocation to local authorities in the enforcement of this proposed legislation and, indeed, of current legislation? My noble friend made a robust case for introducing these new offences into the Bill and I look forward to the Minister’s reflections.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses who have spoken on this issue. I was slightly surprised to see this amendment as it is something that perhaps has been, and no doubt will be, considered in debates on the Children and Families Bill. There was also last Thursday’s Urgent Question, but that was more specific on the issue of standardised tobacco packaging, which I am sure the House will deal with in its own way at the appropriate time.
	We in this Committee and in the wider House can all agree that it is wrong for people to buy tobacco on behalf of children and young people; that was a point well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. We totally acknowledge that smoking is an addiction which unfortunately begins largely in childhood and adolescence, with peer pressure, friends or whatever encouraging people to take it up. Almost two-thirds of current and ex-smokers in England say that they started smoking regularly before the age of 18.
	Part of our comprehensive tobacco control plan for England, which was published in 2011, was therefore focused on reducing the numbers of young people taking up smoking. The plan also includes a national ambition to reduce smoking among young people in England to less than 12% by 2015. As a result of decades of tobacco control, rates of smoking among young people have reduced considerably to around 10%, according to the most recent figures. I am sure that we have all noticed the practice of reducing smoking and prohibiting it in places such as restaurants.
	I remember as a child seeing smoking on trains and undergrounds, which we would be appalled by in this modern age. Restricting and prohibiting smoking has led to a reduction of it in society in general.
	However, the take-up of smoking by young people continues to be a problem. It is estimated that more than 300,000 young people under the age of 16 in England try smoking for the first time each year. Reducing access to tobacco by children and young people remains a high priority for the Government and we are determined to reduce further the smoking rates among young people.
	As for the sale of tobacco, we know that the majority of retailers are law-abiding and conscientious in how they conduct their sales. I acknowledge the important role they play in ensuring that legitimate tobacco products are sold in accordance with the law, including by being rigorous in refusing sales to young people under the age of 18. I realise that this can be difficult and I understand why some noble Lords and some retailers feel that it should be an offence to buy tobacco on behalf of under-18s. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, said, we need to consider carefully whether creating a new offence of proxy purchasing is the right way forward at this time.
	The supply of tobacco to children and young people is not a straightforward issue. A new offence of proxy purchasing would not necessarily tackle the wider problem of the supply of cigarettes because children and young people get them from a range of sources, not just from retailers. For example, many children and young people who smoke obtain their cigarettes from their parents or other members of the family—it is tragic but it does happen—or from friends or people they may socialise with who are over the age of 18. Buying single cigarettes in the school playground happens in certain parts of the country. A proxy purchasing offence would do nothing to stop these issues.
	We also need to look at the practicalities of enforcing a proxy purchasing offence. Enforcement of most tobacco control legislation, including the current law on the age of sale, is—as the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, pointed out—the responsibility of local authority trading standards officers. On the previous amendment my noble friend Lady Hamwee asked whether the Government have been speaking to the Trading Standards Institute. The Trading Standards Institute is broadly supportive of any measures to limit access to tobacco by young people. However, it has also told us that the experience of enforcing the proxy purchasing offence for alcohol suggests that it would be difficult for a similar offence for tobacco to be applied effectively. Enforcement would be resource-intensive for local authorities, particularly because of the burden of proof that would be required for a successful prosecution.
	There are already considerable pressures on local authority trading standards officers and it can be difficult to prove the offence of proxy purchasing. Effective enforcement requires surveillance of shopper and retailer behaviour and is time-consuming. However, when this issue was debated recently in the other place, my colleague the Minister for Public Health, Jane Ellison, said—and I repeat that offer—that she would be happy
	to hear the views, as she said, of Members, and I am sure of all noble Lords, about the local authorities they are dealing with on this issue, particularly on the issue of enforcement.
	I can assure noble Lords that the Government are not complacent about smoking by young people. I will give some examples of the actions we are taking. Since April 2012, supermarkets can no longer have permanently open displays of tobacco products; and in April 2015 this will apply in all shops and anywhere else selling tobacco to the public. Tobacco can no longer be sold from vending machines in England. This has removed an easily accessible source of underage sales. It was estimated that in England about 35 million cigarettes were being sold to people under the age of 18 every year from vending machines. We also continue to run hard-hitting marketing campaigns, including Stoptober. In June and July 2013, we ran a television-led marketing campaign to encourage smokers to protect their families, particularly their children, from second-hand smoke by not smoking in the home or family car. Since January, we have distributed more than half a million Quit Kits—our local stop smoking services are among the best in the world. Smokers trying to quit do better if they use these kits. To discourage smoking, we have some of the highest priced tobacco in Europe and will carry on reviewing our tax policy in this regard. Of course, we fully support the smoke-free legislation passed in the Health Act 2006, which is proving to be both popular and effective in reducing smoking-related illnesses.
	The noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Crawley, both referred to Scotland. A proxy purchasing offence has been in place there since 2011. I assure noble Lords that we are keeping a close eye on how this is being implemented. It is one of a number of changes made as Scotland brought in its registration scheme for tobacco retailers. The Scottish Government, who we have talked to about this issue, say they do not currently hold any information about the numbers of convictions or, as yet, any evaluation of the effectiveness of the new offences. As I said, however, this is an open and live dialogue. The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, also talked about resources. She is right to raise this issue, but it is very much a matter for local authorities to decide what resources they wish to put into enforcing trading standards.
	Finally, while the Government want to take all appropriate action to ensure that cigarettes do not reach those under the age of 18, we remain to be convinced that a new offence of proxy purchasing is, in itself, the answer to stopping smoking by children and young people. This issue is driven primarily by the effectiveness of enforcement. Having illustrated some of the initiatives we are taking, and restated that we wish to hear about the experiences and ideas on how this matter can be tackled of all who are concerned about this issue, I hope that the noble Baroness is minded to withdraw this amendment.

Baroness Crawley: Given the parlous position of local authorities and the possibility of severe cuts in trading standards departments over the next three years, is the Minister satisfied that local authority officers will be able to help police these important laws to protect our young people?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: The noble Baroness is right to raise that issue. As someone who worked in local government for 10 years, I am aware of the budgetary challenges faced by local authorities, irrespective of which Administration is in control centrally, and they need to establish priorities. The noble Baroness made an important point about enforcement. If this were to be made an offence, we would need to consider how it would be enforced. Even if a local authority took it upon itself to increase its number of trading standards officers to enforce this measure, it would be very difficult to do so given all the retail outlets that would need to be monitored. It is important to see what happens in other parts of the country, particularly in Scotland. We have an open door on this issue. If local authorities come up with a good initiative, I hope that they will share it with us so that it can be replicated across the country.

Baroness Thornton: I thank the Minister for his reply and I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Crawley for her contribution. As the Minister is a fairly recent newcomer to tobacco issues and I am not, I gently say to him that all the initiatives he mentioned were introduced by the previous Labour Government in the teeth of great opposition from the Benches opposite, if not from those to the left. We are pleased that those initiatives are being carried through, including the introduction of plain packaging—there is absolutely no doubt about that at all. However, the arguments that the Minister has deployed on proxy purchasing are the same ones that the Conservatives have deployed in all the discussions we have had about tobacco regulation over the many years that I have dealt with the issue. It was argued that because one initiative would not solve the whole problem it should not be introduced. We know that making it an offence to proxy purchase tobacco products on behalf of children is not the complete answer—of course it is not—just as we know that plain packaging is not the complete answer, and just as we know that covering up tobacco products in supermarkets is not the complete answer. We know that the provision we are discussing is not the complete answer. However, that does not mean that it is not important to consider it.
	I am pleased that the Minister said that the door was open on this issue. Perhaps I may push at that door a little and say that if this amendment is not acceptable to the Government, perhaps they need to consider taking a power to introduce an offence of proxy purchasing at the next stage of the Bill, which can then be implemented in due course. That might resolve this problem. I hope the Government will think about that between now and the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 56NC withdrawn.
	Clause 110: Regulations to be prepared or approved by the College
	Amendment 56P
	 Moved by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
	56P: Clause 110, page 81, line 37, leave out “and (7)” and insert “, (7) and (10)”

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, Clause 110 provides the legal basis for the College of Policing to set standards for the police in England and Wales. This is the first of a number of provisions relating to the college and I think it would be helpful to explain some of the context for them.
	The ability of the police to fight crime depends, for the most part, on the skills and abilities of the brave men and women who serve as police officers and police staff. As I glance around the House, I note several noble Lords who can speak with great experience and expertise of that area. The threats police officers and police staff must deal with on a daily basis are significant. Neither the Government nor the police can afford to neglect training and development. To do so jeopardises the safety of all our communities.
	The arrangements this Government inherited were insufficient. Although the National Police Improvement Agency had responsibility for police training, its remit was too broad and its work too complex for it to deliver effectively for the police and the public. Given the severity of the threat the police and public face, the Government believe that a more focused set of arrangements are required. Part of those requirements involves the creation of the professional body for the police—the College of Policing.
	The College of Policing’s mission will be to support the fight against crime and protect the public by ensuring professionalism at all levels in policing. It will do this through delivery in five core areas of responsibility. Those areas include: setting standards of professional practice; accrediting training providers and setting learning and development outcomes; identifying, developing and promoting good practice based on evidence; supporting police forces and other organisations to work together to protect the public and prevent crime; and identifying, developing and promoting ethics, values and standards of integrity.
	The Government intend that the creation of the college should cement the status of the police as a profession. As a profession, the police will need to take greater responsibility for setting standards. Too often, those standards have been led by government. Clause 110 changes this balance. The clause provides that in future regulations regarding rank, qualifications for appointment and promotion, service on probation and personal records for police officers and special constables will be prepared by the college. The college will also prepare regulations relating to training for police officers and qualifications for deployment to particular roles. Finally, if the college believes it to be necessary, it can also prepare regulations regarding police practice or procedure.
	As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will continue to make these regulations and will continue to be accountable to Parliament for them, she will retain a right of veto. This power will be exercised if the regulations prepared by the college would impair the efficiency and effectiveness of the police, would be unlawful, or would for some other reason be wrong. This final power of veto may be used where the regulations as drafted are flawed, insufficiently clear or do not achieve the policy intention that the college hopes to achieve. In such circumstances the Home
	Secretary could ask the college to prepare a fresh draft of the regulations so as not to present flawed regulations before Parliament.
	As I am sure noble Lords are aware, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has commented on this clause. Indeed, it has issued an additional report which was published only this morning. The Government are most grateful to the committee for both its reports and we have already dealt with a number of amendments that implement its recommendations. As with its other recommendations, we have given careful consideration to the committee’s points about the delegation of the Home Secretary’s regulation-making powers as provided for in Clause 110.
	The Government agree with the committee that regulations made under Section 53A of the Police Act 1996, governing the practices and procedures of police forces, should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in all cases. Police practice and procedure are matters of legitimate public concern. We all have an interest in the way that police officers go about their duty and it is only right that Parliament is able to scrutinise the work of the college in this area.
	The Bill proposes to give the college two powers regarding standards of police practice and procedure. First, it proposes to give it a power to issue statutory codes of practice under Section 39A of the Police Act 1996. In the event that the college exercises this power, chief constables must have regard to any such code. Secondly, the Bill proposes to give the college a power to make changes to police regulations concerning practice and procedure. The Government believe that, in the event that the college wishes to make matters of police practice or procedure mandatory, Parliament should have the opportunity to debate and approve such regulations before they come into force. We have accordingly put forward Amendments 56P and 56Q.
	However, in respect of regulations under Sections 50 and 51 of the Police Act 1996 and Section 97 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, the Government believe that the negative resolution procedure should continue to apply. These regulations relate to limited aspects of the governance, administration and conditions of service of police forces and to police training. These are more akin to regulations on pay and discipline, which are subject to the negative resolution procedure. There is no need for regulations prepared by the college to receive an enhanced level of parliamentary scrutiny when regulations made under the same powers on matters of at least equal significance, such as police pay, do not. Moreover, there may be occasions where such regulations need to be made quickly, and the application of the affirmative procedure would preclude that.
	The Delegated Powers Committee was particularly concerned about the regulation-making power in Section 53A of the 1996 Act. We believe that making those regulations subject to the affirmative procedure largely addresses that concern.
	The Government have always been clear about the importance of the College of Policing being independent of central government. The Government have taken a
	number of decisions that have allowed the college to operate independently since its creation, and we will work with the college to explore its longer-term ambition of securing a royal charter. However, there are several steps to be taken before active consideration can be given to helping the college to succeed in that aim. In particular, the college needs to reduce its reliance on central government for funding, raising more of its revenue itself through trading.
	Although the college is independent, the Government believe that there are some areas where it should be accountable to Parliament. I have already spoken about the role that Parliament will play in the event that the college chooses to exercise the powers that the Bill proposes to confer on it regarding police regulations. I should now like to spend some time focusing on another area where I believe there should be increased scrutiny by Parliament: the college’s ability to charge fees.
	As noble Lords will be aware, the college already has the powers that it needs to trade through its existence as a company limited by guarantee. However, Amendment 56QZA extends the college’s accountability to Parliament for some of the products and services that it will sell which may be considered services of a public nature. The proposed new clause would allow the Home Secretary to specify the categories of such services in secondary legislation—for example, examinations for sergeants and inspectors. As with the provisions relating to the standards that the college will set, this provision will continue to remain in place even if the college succeeds in its aim of gaining a royal charter. This amendment would ensure that there was proper ministerial and parliamentary oversight of the college’s charging framework. It would also ensure that the college was able to develop commercially so that it could thrive as the independent professional body for the police.
	For the reasons I have set out, I commend Clause 110 and these amendments to the Committee.

Baroness Thornton: I gave notice of my opposition to the Question that Clause 110 stand part, and I did so for probing purposes. I am still not clear that the Government are fulfilling the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee. I accept that the Minister addressed himself to the first report of the committee but I think I am right in saying that it is very unusual—it may never have happened before—that the Delegated Powers Committee has twice recommended to the Government that regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure, and I should like clarification on that.
	Clause 110 amends provisions which confer these powers to make regulations relating to the police. I listened to what the noble Lord said but I am not completely clear that the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. In paragraph 5 of its report produced today, the Delegated Powers Committee said that,
	“we remain of the view that, if the House considers it appropriate to transfer control of the content of the regulations to the College of Policing, the regulations should in all cases be subject to the affirmative procedure”.
	I am still not sure whether that is the case. If I am right that the Government have made some regulations
	subject to the affirmative procedure but not these, then that is a cause for some discussion and concern. If I am wrong, I apologise to the Committee.
	Secondly, I seek some explanation of the wording that has already been referred to by the noble Lord. In new subsection (2ZA) introduced under Clause 110(1), paragraph (c) says that,
	“it would for some other reason be wrong to do so”,
	in relation to the Secretary of State’s right of veto. Therefore, the Secretary of State is giving with one hand and taking away with the other. My honourable friend David Hanson raised the same question in the House of Commons. It seems contradictory, and I should like the Minister to explain to the Committee why the Government reached that view.
	I want to make one other point in relation to the noble Lord’s final remarks. He said that the College of Policing will be subject to further scrutiny concerning its fees and other matters, as well as its financial and commercial viability. I just want to ask how on earth the Minister thinks that being accountable to Parliament for one’s financial and commercial viability will work.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, regarding the noble Baroness’s first set of questions, she is indeed correct. I mentioned that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee had issued a second report. She quoted from paragraph 5 of that report. Earlier on in that paragraph, the committee says:
	“The Government have accepted this recommendation in so far as it relates to regulations under section 53A of the Police Act 1996”.
	I believe that that was very clear from the points that I made. She then asked which regulations remain under the negative procedure, and perhaps I may expand on that a bit more. We have said that in respect of regulations under Sections 50 and 51 of the Police Act 1996 and Section 97 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 the Government believe that the negative resolution procedure should apply, and I shall expand on that.
	These regulations relate to limited aspects of the governance, administration and conditions of service of police forces and to police training. Clearly, as I said earlier, these matters do not have the same level of sensitivity and public interest as police practices and procedures. During debate on an earlier amendment, the noble Baroness referred to the fact that she has been in your Lordships’ House far longer than I have, and I am sure she can relate to the fact that no regulations have been made in relation to training since Section 97 of the 2001 Act came into force and that the existing regulations under Sections 50 and 51 of the 1996 Act concerning ranks, appointments, promotion and personal records have been the subject of limited and infrequent amendment.
	These essentially administrative matters are more akin to regulations on pay and discipline, which are also made under Sections 50 and 51 of the Police Act 1996, and are subject to the negative resolution procedure. There is no need for regulations prepared by the college to receive an enhanced level of parliamentary scrutiny, when regulations made under the same powers on matters of at least equal significance, such as police pay, do not. The negative procedure has
	worked effectively for many years on all these issues without any difficulty. It seems right and proportionate to maintain those uniform arrangements going forward. That does not of course mean that we cannot rule out the possibility that the regulations might need to be made quickly. Therefore, the affirmative resolution procedure would make that more difficult. Typically, that would occur in response to some unforeseen emergency, a change to our international obligations, a court decision that existing regulations are unlawful or the discovery of some error in the regulations that requires particular correction.
	The noble Baroness also talked about my right honourable friend the Home Secretary retaining the power of veto for any other reason and the reasons for that. The information on when it may be wrong to make regulations for any other reason are set out in the Explanatory Notes, to which I refer the noble Baroness. It covers circumstances in which the regulation, as drafted, is not sufficiently clear, as I said earlier, is flawed or would not achieve the policy intention for which the college had hoped. In such circumstances the Home Secretary could ask the college to prepare a fresh draft so as not to present flawed regulations before Parliament.
	In proposing what they are, the Government have struck the right balance, which ensures sufficient scrutiny by Parliament and supports oversight by the Home Secretary, if required. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
	Amendment 56P agreed.
	Amendment 56Q
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	56Q: Clause 110, page 81, line 37, at end insert—
	“( ) in subsection (9), for “the first regulations to be made” there is substituted “regulations”.”
	Amendment 56Q agreed.
	Clause 110, as amended, agreed.
	Clauses 111 to 113 agreed.
	Amendment 56QZA
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	56QZA: After Clause 113, insert the following new Clause—
	“Charging of fees by the College
	After section 95 of the Police Act 1996 there is inserted—
	“95A Charging of fees by College of Policing
	(1) The College of Policing may charge fees for providing services of a public nature only if—
	(a) the services are of a specified description and are provided with a view to promoting the efficiency, effectiveness or professionalism of the police, and
	(b) the fees are of a specified amount or are determined in a specified manner.
	(2) In this section “specified” means specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.
	(3) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.””
	Amendment 56QZA agreed.
	Clause 114 agreed.
	Clause 115: Disclosure of information to the College
	Debate on whether Clause 115 should stand part of the Bill.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am taking this opportunity to ask the Minister, who knows about my question, whether Clause 115 has the effect which it seems to me to have. The new section which is to be inserted into the Police Act will provide for powers to anyone to disclose information to the College of Policing where this is,
	“for the purposes of the exercise by the College of any of its functions”.
	Will the Data Protection Act be overridden in its entirety by this provision? What checks, possibility of challenge and possibility of complaint will there be? Is there any proportionality, propriety and so on? I am sure that I will be told that there is a difference between the college’s functions and its powers but I am not clear about the extent of this clause, which seems to be very wide.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I take it that my noble friend’s comments primarily were probing. Clause 115 provides the basis of information-sharing agreements between individuals and the College of Policing. In order for the college to fulfil its objectives it will need, from time to time, to have access to certain information. This information could cover a range of issues, including information about data in support of its work on the effectiveness of policing practice, data to inform the standards it sets for police officers and staff, and information that will help it produce the standards of ethics and values for the police. For example, as part of the college’s work to develop standards and ethics for the police, it may need information from the IPCC about its investigations and some of the lessons it has learned from the conduct of police officers. This information will be general and it should not be necessary for the IPCC to share information that would enable the college or its staff to identify individual police officers. I hope that noble Lords agree that it is important for the IPCC and other public authorities to have a clear legal power to share this valuable information with the college.
	Noble Lords will be aware that public authorities can act only within the scope of the powers given to them by legislation. It is therefore necessary for them to have clear statutory powers to share information. This clause will ensure that every organisation that would not otherwise have the power to disclose information to the college has a power to do so. However, it does not absolve those organisations, or the college, from their legal duties in relation to the sharing of information, which was a particular issue that I raised vis-à-vis the Data Protection Act. The Data Protection Act provisions on the processing of personal data, the right to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights and the common-law duty of confidentiality are not affected by this clause.
	This enabling power ensures that organisations which may wish to share information with the college are able to do so. We have not specified those organisations
	or the information that they may need to share in the Bill. We want the college, working together with the police, to determine how it can best deliver its objectives. That should include allowing it the freedom to identify the organisations with which it will work and how it wants those organisations to support its delivery. This clause will enable the college to do so successfully. In that explanation, I hope that I have addressed the questions raised by my noble friend and, if she is satisfied, that noble Lords will agree that the clause stands part of the Bill.

Baroness Hamwee: Of course, at this stage I am probing. Anything more comes later. I understand to an extent the purpose of the clause, which is to give powers. Perhaps it is a failure of my imagination but I am not clear as to what sort of information the college might require to be disclosed. I will look at what my noble friend has said. As I have said, this seems to be a very wide clause. I will have to do some work on this after today but I am not clear on how the restrictions to which my noble friend has referred would work in this connection. For the moment, I am left with one question. Has the Information Commissioner specifically been consulted about this clause?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I suggest that between Committee and Report I meet my noble friend to address her specific concerns, which I hope will help with clarity and understanding at the next stage.

Lord Harris of Haringey: Does the noble Baroness agree that it might be helpful if the Minister, in writing to her, sets out a precise list of what is required and explains why it would not be possible for that list to be laid in regulations so that it is clear what information is being referred to? The way in which it is written at the moment seems extraordinarily broad.

Baroness Hamwee: I agree with that. I was going to press my noble friend a little on whether the Information Commissioner has been consulted. I hoped that there might be time for inspiration to flow across half the length of the Chamber but I do not think that it has.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: While inspiration may be somewhat limited, I take on board the noble Lord’s suggestion. As I have said, I will suggest a meeting to address some of the concerns.
	Clause 115 agreed.
	Clauses 116 to 118 agreed.
	Schedule 6 agreed.
	Clause 119: Consultation about regulations: England and Wales
	Amendment 56QZB
	 Moved by Baroness Hamwee
	56QZB: Clause 119, page 87, leave out lines 12 to 18

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments 56QZC and 56QZD, which are on the same issue. Clause 119 deals with consultation on regulations about hours, leave or pay.
	My amendment, which is probing at this stage, would remove the provision whereby the duty on the Secretary of State,
	“to consider advice from the Senior Salaries Review Body or to refer the matter to the Police Remuneration Review Body does not apply if the Secretary of State considers that”,
	the matter is so urgent that there is not enough time, or the nature of the proposed regulations makes it unnecessary to undertake that. The duty is to “consider” advice rather than consult, so perhaps the message goes out but one does not wait to receive responses.
	In my mind, this boils down to hours, leave and pay. What can be so urgent about these matters that the Secretary of State should not have to undertake process? If they are minor, the SSRB and the PRRB can say so. Indeed, if they are urgent, the two bodies could say, “We appreciate the urgency but we simply do not have time to deal with this”. The provision in new Section 52A(5) is a check on the Secretary of State, so I am concerned that it may be sidelined. The other amendments in this group are with regard to the Northern Ireland Secretary and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the opportunity to address this important safety mechanism in the functioning of the Police Remuneration Review Body. The provisions that my noble friend’s amendment would delete from the Bill are intended to be used in only two instances. The first is if a matter is so urgent there is not enough time for the Secretary of State or the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice to consult the review body, which is of course not in constant session. To illustrate that, the Government have in mind a time of national emergency—for instance, ongoing, widespread rioting, or co-ordinated terrorist attacks across the country, or even, because we must always plan for every eventuality, at a time of war. There might be, for example, an alternative process for arranging officers’ shift patterns, or officers might be called to take on special duties that we could not foresee but which might be critical to the national response to an emergency, and for which we would want them, rightly, to be compensated.
	Secondly, the provisions that my noble friend has drawn to our attention are intended to be used in situations where it would be unnecessary to consult the review body on a matter. For example, if a minor drafting error in the regulations needed to be corrected it would be inefficient and unnecessary to have to consult the Police Remuneration Review Body before correcting the error. Similarly, if there was an uncontroversial change to employment law that did not automatically apply to police officers by virtue of their unique employment status, of which noble Lords will be aware, we would want to amend regulations to reflect this change in the law without reference to the review body.
	We added this power specifically in response to comments by policing partners, including the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents’ Association, that they would be concerned that not being able to make police regulations without reference to the body, in certain circumstances, could actually make the system more cumbersome. We believe that this provision addresses that concern.
	I should conclude my comments on this proposed amendment by noting that in all cases, regardless of whether the review body is consulted or not, a draft of the proposed changes must be supplied to all interested parties before any changes are made, and this includes the opportunity for interested parties to make any representations. Therefore, neither the Secretary of State nor the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice would ever make changes to police officer remuneration in a vacuum, and would always have the input of representatives of police officers and those responsible for maintaining police forces. I hope in the light of my explanations that my noble friend will be able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it is helpful to have that explanation on the record. On the point about hours, leave and so on in the event of a national emergency—I believe that “national emergency” is being used in a rather non-technical, wide sense—I had assumed that the terms and conditions of the regulations already allowed for the flexibility needed for the circumstances referred to by my noble friend. That is no doubt naivety on my part. As to whether something is necessary, I simply say that it can be a matter of judgment. That is why I thought it was important to understand what was meant here. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 56QZB withdrawn.
	Clause 119 agreed.
	Clause 120: Consultation about regulations: Northern Ireland
	Amendments 56QZC and 56QZD not moved.
	Clause 120 agreed.
	Amendment 56QZE
	 Moved by Baroness Doocey
	56QZE: Before Clause 121, insert the following new Clause—
	“IPCC: requirement to carry out investigations
	In section 10 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (general functions of the Commission) after subsection (2) there is inserted—
	“(2A) In carrying out its functions in subsection (1)(a) with regard to investigations under subsection (2)(c), the Commission shall ensure that the majority of investigations are conducted by the staff of the Commission.””

Baroness Doocey: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments 56QZF and 56QZG. The object of these amendments is to strengthen the independence and transparency of the IPCC. They would do so by increasing the proportion of independent investigations carried out by the IPCC, reducing the proportion of IPCC investigators who are former police officers and requiring the IPCC to report annually to Parliament.
	Amendment 56QZE would require that, in the case of serious complaints, the IPCC would carry out the majority of investigations itself. To maintain the culture of policing by consent, there must always be an effective response to valid complaints and the public rightly expect independence and transparency in the investigation of such complaints. But last year, just one in 17 of the
	serious cases referred to the IPCC resulted in an independent investigation. I am sure that that is not what Parliament intended when the IPCC was set up, nor will this approach maintain public trust and confidence.
	The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee considered the work of the IPCC on two occasions, most recently in January this year. Its report highlighted concerns about the independence of the IPCC’s investigations and the impact on its work of a high caseload and restricted resources. The IPCC has itself accepted that it must take on more independent investigations, and the Government have assisted it to do so by providing additional funding. Can the Minister indicate how much additional money it is to receive? The amendment seeks to ensure that, in future, the majority of serious complaints are independently investigated by the IPCC.
	Amendment 56QZF addresses the problem of the number of IPCC investigators who are former or seconded police officers. This practice leaves the IPCC open to the charge that, even for the most serious complaints, it is actually the police investigating the police. The amendment would limit to just 25% the proportion of IPCC investigators who come from a police background. It would also prohibit the appointment of any former police officer to the important post of director of investigations of the IPCC.
	The IPCC’s own annual report for 2011/12 reported that all of its senior investigators, plus half of its deputy senior investigators and one-third of its investigators, are former police officers or police civilians. For the investigation staff as a whole, the proportion coming from a police background was reported to be 43%. Furthermore, the IPCC’s current director of investigations is a former Metropolitan Police commander. This is a very significant post which requires absolute independence. I acknowledge that these former police officers bring valuable experience and skills to the job but, unfortunately, they also compromise the IPCC’s independence.
	The additional funds that are to be given to the IPCC should enable the recruitment of new investigators from different disciplines outside policing. While the IPCC might need the skills of former police officers in the short term, the need to employ them should be greatly reduced in the long run. The amendment accordingly proposes that not more than one-quarter of IPCC investigating staff should have a police background and that it should be led by a director of investigations who does not have such a background. The amendment sets a deadline of 1 January 2017—three years hence—for these targets to be achieved.
	Amendment 56QZG is intended to maintain the drive for independence in the IPCC by improving its reporting requirements. The Police Reform Act 2002 already requires the IPCC to make an annual report to the Home Secretary on the carrying out of its functions during the year. The amendment would require the IPCC to also report to Parliament on moves to strengthen its independence. This would include the volume of independent investigations carried out, the number of investigators employed who have not served in the police, any other work to strengthen the IPCC’s
	independence and any changes to its responsibilities during the year. The amendment would ensure that greater exposure to the work of the IPCC is achieved through the mechanism of clear, annual reporting requirements. I beg to move.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for tabling this amendment. I have put my name to it because I want to probe the Government on their exact intentions and the timescales for the changes and improvements to the IPCC that the Home Secretary has announced. I note with interest that this debate is now being observed by four former Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police. I cannot recall a previous instance when all four have been in the Chamber simultaneously and, as a consequence, I suspect that the Minister ought to be afraid, very afraid, about either this amendment or a subsequent one.
	We need to consider this important amendment—and I look forward to the ministerial response—because it goes to the core of how we can have confidence and trust in the police service. The public want to be satisfied that, when things go wrong, their concern has been properly investigated in an independent, thorough, robust and timely manner. If it is a serious matter which may lead to criminal charges, or dismissal of officers or whatever else, that process must be above rebuke and there must be no question of bias or anything else.
	I have a lot of confidence in the chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, Dame Anne Owers, who is working very hard to improve the capacity and capability of the IPCC. The Government, having initially not quite recognised the importance of this body, have now changed their position but we need some clarity on how quickly things are going to move. Having trust in the processes followed by the IPCC is a necessary component of having trust in the police themselves. Whether or not the police have the consent of the public is called into question unless the public can have confidence that their complaints are being investigated adequately and independently.
	These amendments would, first, ensure that most investigations—particularly serious ones—are carried out by staff who are not, nor have ever been, police officers themselves. Secondly, they reduce the number of investigations delegated to another police force or to the police force itself under investigation. Thirdly, they ask the IPCC to report regularly on its progress. However, we have heard that the Home Secretary intends to increase the resources available to the IPCC. As I understand it, it is not intended to transfer officers from police forces into the IPCC but to give them new resources. What are the timescales for these changes? What do the Government expect to see happen? Do the Government accept the principle that the proportion of investigations carried out by people who have not previously been police officers should increase?
	There is a general belief that, when it is a serious matter, things are swept under the carpet and I am afraid that some recent revelations and crises have not helped this. It is therefore important that clarity is
	given and that people have confidence that this is not just about the police investigating themselves. Noble Lords in this Committee may be very clear that this is not about a police officer who knows the individual under investigation and who is therefore investigating their mate’s performance. At the moment, the IPCC has all sorts of measures in place to avoid that being the case, but the public perception is that complaints are being investigated by current or former police officers and it is assumed that the police are investigating themselves. This amendment is important because we need clarity that there is genuine independence, and that those concerned are not former police officers who, it may be asserted—probably wrongly—know the individuals or are part of the same culture about which someone has complained.
	The Minister will, no doubt, have a whole series of technical points on why this amendment is not quite right or does not work. He does not: that is even better. We can agree it tonight and that will be very good. It is important to understand the direction of travel, how quickly we are moving there and how we will see the sort of independence which will give confidence in the complaints process and, in turn, enable the police to move back to a position of public trust.

Lord Condon: My Lords, during my time as commissioner, I argued strongly for a fully independent and well resourced police investigation process. I have maintained that position since my retirement and I entirely support the motivation behind these amendments. However, I have concerns that Amendment 56QZF, in particular, is too prescriptive in the timescale available and that the notion of having 75% of investigators with a non-police background by January 2017 might, perversely, have the reverse effect of its intention. If it is a prescriptive requirement to get to that point, it may be tempting to employ people as investigators who are not adequately trained or have the right background to investigate these most serious and complex allegations. While admiring the intentions behind these amendments, I have concerns about the practicality of the timescales. I urge caution about such a prescriptive requirement.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, I will add to the comments of previous noble Lords in support of my noble friend Lady Doocey and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, of Haringey. As I said earlier, 30 years’ experience in the Metropolitan Police left me wondering whether the Independent Police Complaints Commission was truly independent. We have seen recent cases where the IPCC has not only apparently not been particularly independent but has not understood when a case is serious. It was only after officers had given evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee about the meeting between the former Chief Whip and Police Federation officers that the IPCC decided that the case was serious enough to take on as an independent investigation rather than referring it back to the police to investigate themselves.
	Another less well known case is that of former officers in the Metropolitan Police who have complained about the way in which the Directorate of Professional Standards conducted an investigation against them.
	A complaint made to the IPCC was referred back to the Directorate of Professional Standards in the Metropolitan Police for it to investigate itself, which does not give much confidence to members of the public that things are being independently investigated. Clearly, having a former constable as the director of investigations—somebody who is controlling how investigations are carried out—does not appear to me to inspire confidence in the public that the IPCC is independent.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Condon; bearing in mind that he used to be my boss, it would be rude of me not to agree with him, and I notice nods from the other former commissioners who are in their place. However, I will say that I spent 15 years in uniform and was made an instant detective chief inspector overnight, such was the need at a certain time in the history of the Metropolitan Police. I received a visit some weeks later from my detective chief superintendent, who said, “Now you know what the secret is”—that there is really nothing much to being a detective.
	I agree that the timescale set out in my noble friend Lady Doocey’s amendment may be ambitious but it is something that we need to aspire to in order give the public confidence. I am sure that there are people in other walks of life, such as former customs officers, who have not only the skills but the experience to investigate these sorts of issues. People who have not had previous experience of investigations could be given the necessary training to carry out effective investigations into alleged police malpractice.

Lord Tyler: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend Lady Doocey for not being present for the first minute or so of her speech. She caught me out by moving faster than I anticipated and I apologise, too, if she made this point, about the general reputation of the police service. I have some past experience, as a member of a police authority for some six years and then as constituency Member of Parliament. I had to deal with not only the police service but occasionally of course, unfortunately, with the IPCC as well.
	The police service itself would welcome a greater sense of independence from the IPCC because there is a perception—we all know in politics that the perception is very often more important than the reality—that there is an overcosy relationship between the police service and the IPCC that is almost incestuous. The case that has been made on all sides of the Committee for reinforcing the IPCC’s degree of independence is extremely important, not just for the reputation of the IPCC itself but for the overall reputation of the whole police service, which, as we all know today, is questionable. It is sad to say but, for those of us who rate the police service very highly and have a great respect for it, its reputation for integrity is not as great as we would like it to be. There would be support from within the service for a greater sense of independence between the IPCC and police officers themselves. On that basis, I hope there will be a very sympathetic response from the Minister.

Lord Blair of Boughton: My Lords, I will follow my noble friend Lord Condon, in particular on the suggested new clause calling for a 75% figure in
	three years.
	Before that, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I will say that I now envy my noble friend Lord Condon as I, too, was the boss of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and he did not stop disagreeing with me.
	The 75% figure represents a very noble direction of travel. That is what we need to get to, but getting to it in three years will water down the IPCC’s skills and potentially damage its reputation. In particular, I take issue with something that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said about the skills of senior and other investigators. All three of the commissioners on this particular Bench, and, I am sure, the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, will recognise the skill needed to be a senior investigating officer leading a major inquiry into police corruption or malfeasance. It needs the skills of somebody who has led serious investigations into something else before. The skill set is just not out there among people who are not police officers—there are very few investigative agencies with the level of skill to lead that complex an inquiry. We must not set targets here that end up damaging the ability of the IPCC to carry out independent investigations.

Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington: My Lords, I will just add my comments to those of my noble friends Lord Condon and Lord Blair and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Obviously, the Independent Police Complaints Commission should be independent, and noble Lords may be aware of the views of the commission that I chaired recently on the combination of the inspectorate and the Independent Police Complaints Commission itself. Putting that aside, it was fascinating to take evidence from the head of the IPCC, Anne Owers, and to see her recently for a couple of hours to talk about issues and realise how underresourced she is. Credit must be given to the Government that they have recognised that.
	Along with my noble friends Lord Condon and Lord Blair, and my old colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I just call for a little caution. Having led inquiries in difficult places such as Northern Ireland for 15 to 20 years, I know that you need the experience and the expertise. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is absolutely right that the IPCC has to be seen to be independent, but let us gradually work towards that. To train people up to the required level takes an awful lot of experience. In addition, this is not just about training but about having your feet on the ground, understanding how the systems work, building up a team and delivering something that is useful to the police service and, more importantly, to the complainant. Noble Lords should make no mistake about it: the IPCC needs support, needs resources and needs reforming. It has a massive job to do and I would not like to see it have the rug drawn from underneath its feet in terms of experience and delivery.

Lord Rosser: My Lords, I will be very brief. I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey for tabling these amendments. Clearly, their principal purpose is not so much to be specific but to provide the welcome opportunity to hear from the Minister what the Government’s future intentions are in relation to the
	IPCC, particularly concerning its independence. Very important comments were made by the noble Lords, Lord Blair and Lord Stevens, about the need to ensure that there are suitably qualified people within the IPCC to carry out the investigations that are needed. We, too, hope that the Minister will be able to indicate how the Government see the future of the IPCC, in particular what changes and objectives they are seeking for the IPCC in the years ahead.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, when we discussed police integrity last Thursday, I felt that there was a degree of unanimity in the House. In the debate that we have just had on these amendments, there was also a degree of unanimity, certainly with regard to the direction of travel that we want to see the IPCC adopt. We had a very good debate last week, initiated by my noble friend Lord Paddick, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Doocey for the contribution she made to that debate, and for tabling these amendments today.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and my noble friend Lord Tyler said, we need to address perception as well as reality. The IPCC confidence survey reported that 85% trusted it to handle police complaints impartially but we cannot be complacent in our drive to rebuild the IPCC as a truly independent body.
	In connection with Amendment 56QZE, noble Lords will be aware that the Government are transferring resources to the IPCC to enable it to undertake all serious and sensitive investigations—an intention that is entirely consistent with my noble friend Lady Doocey’s amendment. An announcement will be made shortly, in line with the police annual settlement process, on the level of those resources. I can assure noble Lords that the expansion of the IPCC is on track and it will begin to take on more cases from next year.
	However, in requiring the IPCC to carry out “the majority of investigations”, the amendment does not specify the nature of those investigations. My noble friend Lady Doocey talked about serious investigations and that is probably what she intends the amendment to deal with. Of course, some complaints made against the police are best dealt with at local level. We will still have the police investigating the police at a local level; for example, where it is a matter of service levels or a lack of civility. But I think we can all see that with the more serious investigations the IPCC must independently be in a position to investigate those matters.
	As a Lincolnshire man, I am finely tuned to poachers and gamekeepers. As regards Amendment 56QZF, I note that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, are anticipating our direction of travel. I appreciate that the requirement for the director of investigations to be someone who has not held the office of constable in the United Kingdom would seem to provide a stronger guarantee of independence. However, I question how the public’s best interests would be served by the IPCC having to dismiss someone who currently performs this function effectively and impartially; indeed, I am doubtful whether this would even be possible under current employment law.
	I am with the noble Lords, Lord Condon, Lord Blair and Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, on this issue. We need a skills base within the IPCC if it is to
	be able to perform the task we expect of it. Similarly, the target—and it is a target, even though the Government have all but forsworn targets—of at least 75% of those employed as investigators by the IPCC being from non-police backgrounds by January 2017 is intended to address concerns about impartiality.
	However, this amendment overlooks the steps the IPCC has already taken to ensure a diverse and multidisciplinary staff, and the training scheme aimed at those from a range of backgrounds. It is worth noting that according to the latest published figures, the proportion of investigatory and caseworking staff with a background in policing is below 16%. Of course, what is most important is the way in which all IPCC staff work and their commitment to the values and culture of the organisation. I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord Condon, Lord Blair and Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington—and, I hope, the noble Lord, Lord Imbert—share these sentiments. It is good to have such a distinguished group of former Met commissioners participating in this debate. I am sure they will agree that it is the culture of the organisation that dominates the way in which it responds to its independent role.
	Moving to Amendment 56QZG, I can see that for the Home Secretary to receive annual figures on the proportion of staff from non-police backgrounds, and the number and nature of their investigations, would provide a degree of detail and certainty as to operational conditions within the IPCC. However, the commission already has a statutory duty to report to the Home Secretary on the carrying out of its functions each year. It already publishes details of the organisation and its investigations in its annual report and in annual statistics. I can see no benefit from prescribing the content of the annual reports in the way that the amendment seeks to do. Indeed, it might be suggested that that is not a very independent thing for the Independent Police Complaints Commission to be asked to do. I know that is not what my noble friend intends but it would certainly add to the bureaucratic burden of the organisation.
	Having said that, I agree with my noble friend that the IPCC must be independent and be seen to be independent. In the light of my comments, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Imbert: My Lords, as the only other former commissioner here, I feel that I should add my support to their concern about the date.
	I have often been told that the best way to catch a slippery officer—one who is corrupt, rude or has no integrity and lies—is to set an experienced, crafty detective chief superintendent, who is honest and full of integrity, to catch him. He knows the moves that that corrupt officer is going to take. It is this experience that I fear we will lose, but we must, in order to show the public that the IPCC is absolutely independent. I agree with the points that have been made about that, and with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.
	However if we put that date on it, I fear that the IPCC, in its endeavours to get to the position where 75% are non-former constables of the United Kingdom—I hope that that means anywhere, including Australia, Canada, America or wherever—may well select people,
	whether ex-Customs, military or whoever, who do not have the experience or the time to train properly to catch a corrupt police officer. The date is far too soon. Let the IPPC select people who will make first-class investigators; let us not rush it, please.

Baroness Hamwee: Before my noble friend responds, perhaps I may add to the list of things that she might want to mention. As I understand it—I would be interested to know whether I read this correctly—my noble friend seeks a spread of experience. Points can be made about the date and the percentage, but what is important, apart from independence and the perception of independence, is that good practice—there is a lot of it among the police, but it is not confined to the police—could be spread to the non-police investigators and, conversely, that experience from elsewhere might be shared with those who have that professional background.
	The last time that I took even the slightest issue with the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, somebody said to me, “Watch it, they’ll all have your car registration number”. However, I drive so slowly as perhaps to be a problem in that way.
	We are trying to get to a good mix. Nobody exclusively has the right experience or the right way to approach these matters.

Baroness Doocey: My Lords, I thank the Minister—my noble friend the listening Minister—for his positive response. I confirm that I was referring to serious cases —he was right about that—not the cases that should rightly be dealt with at a lower level. I apologise to the House if I did not make that entirely clear.
	I am delighted that the Minister has confirmed that, in future, all serious cases will be investigated independently by the IPCC. That is very important. Everyone who has made comments agrees that it is important that the IPCC is not just independent but seen by the public to be to be independent. We can all agree on that.
	However, I am concerned about the issue of a date. To me, the words “direction of travel” mean, “Kick it into the long grass”. It would be sad if that happened. I understand the experience of noble Lords who have spoken, and it may well be that the date that I chose is too soon, but there must be a date as a cut-off point. If there is not, it could go on and on; that would be very wrong. We must deal with this issue of the perception of the police investigating the police. That will continue as long as the vast majority of investigators are former or seconded police officers.
	Having said that, I have no desire for the IPCC to lose very good officers who are doing a very good job and who have experience. The issue is not to throw the baby out with the bath water. There is time for us to modify my proposal, which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, has agreed that we should do. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 56QZE withdrawn.
	Amendments 56QZF and 56QZG not moved.
	House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.35 pm.

Female Genital Mutilation
	 — 
	Question for Short Debate

Baroness Cox: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they are addressing issues relating to female genital mutilation.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to all noble Lords contributing to this debate on a subject which is of the utmost gravity in its implications for appalling and avoidable suffering of millions of girls and women today. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, is speaking, as her tireless endeavours to address that barbaric practice are widely appreciated.
	My deep concern originated when I was working as a nurse, implementing an immunisation programme in a remote desert area in Sudan in the 1980s. I will never forget my horror when I first saw FGM—the extent of mutilation and the unbelievable legacy of the remaining tiny aperture with complications of utmost severity for micturition, menstruation, sexual intercourse, risks of haemorrhage, increased risks to mother and baby during childbirth, depression, post-traumatic stress and other mental health problems. I will never forget the screams of young girls in the village when they were taken into the bush at night to undergo the excruciating cutting, often with a rusty knife or broken glass, with thorns for sutures.
	Together with my noble friend Lady Masham, who regrets that she is unable to take part in this debate, we supported the late Lady Jeger and Lord Winstanley in the introduction of the first Bill to outlaw FGM in this country in 1985. Earlier this year, when I re-engaged with the issue, I was profoundly shocked to learn that FGM has continued unabated, with an estimated 100 million to 140 million girls and women globally who have undergone FGM; and approximately 3 million girls are currently at risk of undergoing FGM each year in Africa.
	In England and Wales, despite the 1985 Act, extended in 2003, in 2001 approximately 66,000 women had undergone FGM and 24,000 British girls under the age of 18 were at risk. That number is doubtless below the real figure, because many go to secret clinics or suffer in silence.
	FGM is a very severe form of violence against girls and women, and of child abuse. Despite commendable actions by police forces—for example, Project Azure by the Metropolitan Police and Operation Sentinel by the West Midlands Police—and the action plan launched by the CPS in November 2012, there have still been no prosecutions for FGM in this country.
	I pay tribute to anti-FGM campaigners such as Daughters of Eve, Equality Now and 28 Too Many for pressing for urgent remedial policies. Media coverage, including news reports, documentaries and the BBC television “Casualty” series have raised levels of public concern. FGM survivors, such as the brave young women speaking out in the recent TV documentary “The Cruel Cut” on Channel 4, are calling for those responsible for FGM to be held to account to protect future generations of girls.
	I highlight the excellent report by an intercollegiate group comprising the RCM, the RCN, the RCOG, the Community Practitioners’ and Health Visitors’ Association and Equality Now, which makes important recommendations for Her Majesty’s Government and other stakeholders to develop a long-term strategy for treating FGM as a crime, with systematic and co-ordinated policies using health, social care, education and the police.
	Protection requires early identification of baby girls, especially those born to mothers who have undergone FGM, as high-risk cases; their referral by health professionals as a child-safeguarding obligation to social care; and a follow-up plan to include education, counselling and support for parents. Sadly, the joined-up work needed to track such girls at risk is not happening. Except for emergency one-off cases where a girl is identified as being at risk of imminent FGM, referrals to social services are often dropped as they are deemed not to meet the threshold for assessment, and a care plan is not put into place.
	Another weak link is in the education system. Most FGM occurs during a girl’s time at primary school. Teachers are expected to play a key role in protecting children from abuse, as they are able to detect warning signs and pupils may turn to them before contacting the police or social services. But in a recent YouGov survey for the NSPCC, 83% of the 1,000 teachers surveyed said they had not been given any training about FGM. Education about FGM should also be a compulsory element of personal, social, health and economic education, starting with primary-age children, because girls at risk need to be aware of the danger before they reach the most vulnerable age, which is between eight and 14 years old, to enable them to seek help, protection and prevention. FGM is a form of brutal child abuse and a crime, but the police cannot build a case for prosecution if they are not informed and there is currently widespread failure to refer.
	I turn briefly to the crucial issue of support for survivors. As the number of people from countries where FGM is practised increases in the UK, there is an urgent need for policies to ensure access to support services and referral protocols between health, social care and other key services. This requires mandatory training and reporting requirements as well as a fundamental change of attitudes towards so-called cultural sensitivity and multiculturalism. There are far too many deeply disturbing cases where victims who have looked for help have been refused protection and support because of respect for local cultural traditions. We surely should never have allowed tenets of multiculturalism to take precedence over the law of the land, especially when the cultural practices being condoned are manifestly forms of torture, permanent injury and child abuse. We must move beyond this distorted priority and reassert the fundamental principle that culture cannot take precedence over the law of our land.
	In your Lordships’ House last Thursday, I asked whether the Minister was aware that women who have had FGM and whose daughters are likely to be at risk of subjection to this abhorrent practice are not currently tracked through the National Health Service or social
	care systems, so that no preventive measures could be implemented; and why girls at school who show signs of having had FGM have not been referred to social services or the police for follow-up action. I also asked what Her Majesty’s Government are doing to ensure that robust information-sharing protocols are developed between health, social care and education agencies and the police so that appropriate actions can be taken to support victims and bring perpetrators to account. The Minister responded that on Monday—I believe it was Monday this week—the Health Minister, Jane Ellison, would be meeting healthcare professionals and stakeholders to develop policies on sharing information and data. I take this opportunity to commend Jane Ellison on all her endeavours to address this subject. Can the Minister give an account of the results of that meeting?
	In conclusion, all experienced advocates agree that the time is long overdue for the implementation of comprehensive, joined-up policies of early identification, protection and support, procedures to bring perpetrators to account—as has been achieved in other European countries such as France, Sweden and the Netherlands—and an end to a culture of impunity which allows this mutilation to continue.
	I finish by quoting Nimco Ali, a young British woman who lives in this country and is the co-founder of Daughters of Eve. She wishes her voice to speak for all those voices, either in far-away places or on our own doorsteps, that we cannot here hear tonight:
	“There is a child somewhere today in this country, in school, in a hospital A and E Department or on a bus, who has had FGM or is at risk of this torture, who is counting on us to help her with her physical or emotional trauma—or crying out to stop it happening. That child’s protection is our responsibility. For over 25 years such children have suffered this appalling practice in this country. For how many more years will we allow this extreme child abuse to continue with impunity? The UK is laughing stock of Europe”.
	She also said that girls are sent to the UK because we are seen as a soft touch. Those are not my words but those of a very articulate British woman who has endured the agony, humiliation and psychological trauma of FGM. I hope that the Minister’s reply tonight will bring substantial hope to victims, and to those living in terror of becoming victims, of this indescribable horror of FGM.

Baroness Hodgson of Abinger: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on having introduced this debate on FGM because this is a taboo subject, especially in the countries where it is practised. We have already heard about the terrible impacts of FGM and how widespread the practice is. It is truly shocking that still today in Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, Somalia, Sudan and Sierra Leone, more than 90% of women have been through some form of FGM. Many countries already have laws prohibiting FGM; it is a criminal offence in 15 of the 28 African states where FGM is prevalent, although there are few prosecutions. But where it is deeply embedded in the culture, laws alone have proved insufficient to stop it.
	Education is key to ending FGM, through both teaching girls their rights and educating the general communities about the dangers of this abhorrent practice.
	I would like to give two short examples. First, three years ago I visited a women’s group in Abou Mosalem, just outside Cairo, where we talked about FGM. These women explained that they were worried that if their daughters were not done, they might be rejected by their husbands on their wedding night. Then they would be returned and would for ever be an unmarriageable burden on their families, who could not afford to feed them. Some of these women had attended an informative meeting on FGM and changed their minds. It had made some of them decide not to have their daughters circumcised.
	Secondly, in July 2010, I visited Komarbai village in Sierra Leone to see a project that was being run with the whole community by Plan UK. In Sierra Leone, it is often the father who will decide when a girl needs to undergo initiation. In many of their communities, it is a big disgrace for a girl to have sex without having gone through the initiation. Sometimes, families will even demand that a girl is circumcised to marry into their family. Through role-play at this village meeting, it was shown that the process not only could be lethal for girls but was illegal. When questioned afterwards, the chief and elders said that they were now not so sure it was a good idea.
	In both these countries, the custom of FGM is deeply rooted but these visits show that it is possible to shift that culture. However, it will take time and needs a combination of the right laws and sensitive community education, which I hope that DfID will support, because to truly cease this practice, the communities themselves must embrace change and not just have it foisted on them from the global north.

Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, female genital mutilation has been perpetrated on girls since ancient times. The first known instance of it was seen on an Egyptian mummy dating from 200 BC. The UN has recognised FGM as torture and in calling for its elimination describes it as cruel, inhumane and degrading to women. The first law criminalising FGM in the United Kingdom was passed in 1985, the second 18 years later. However, there have been no prosecutions to date, while prosecutions in France, for instance, are numerous. Since the passing of a law against FGM in Kuria East, in central Africa, eight people are awaiting prosecution and two are serving three years’ imprisonment for employing a circumciser to mutilate their 13 year-old daughter.
	A key barrier to FGM prevention, according to the recently published joint statement by the Intercollegiate Group, Tackling FGM in the UK, is the failure of professionals to respond when presented with a child who may be at risk of FGM. Such children include a girl born to a woman who has undergone FGM and any female child whose elder sister has undergone FGM; she must be considered as at immediate risk. Girls living in the woman’s or child’s household should also be considered at risk. FGM is child abuse. It causes pain, haemorrhage, difficulty in urinating, complications in menstruation, considerable problems in sexual intercourse and childbirth, and can bring about fistula and, sometimes, death. We have a large number of child protection systems in the UK, particularly
	focused on FGM, but the systematic screening of girls through annual physical examinations, as is carried out in France, is seen here as too intrusive. Does the Minister agree with the findings of the joint statement that where there is a suspicion that a girl has undergone FGM, assessments and medicals are helpful and examinations should not be seen as abusive? Is she aware that, as part of a whole health assessment, the standing committee of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, children and their parents do not find such examinations traumatic?
	In the UK, the number of children subjected to it is not known. Rather, the associations and groups that make assessments of numbers come up with varying figures: 66,000 women who have had FGM performed on them is a figure most agree on, but now many say that this is a gross underestimate. Knowing who and how many have suffered this abuse, however, is only half the battle. School teachers, GPs, midwives and nurses need to be aware of which children and young people in their care have suffered FGM, and report their findings to the police.
	FGM has to be stopped. These words have repeatedly been uttered for the 29 years since the passing of the first Bill by those of us who are appalled by FGM. I ask the Minister whether 2014 can be the year that sees the beginning of the end of it.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, who has worked so hard for so many years on this subject. I want to pay tribute to my colleague Lynne Featherstone for having secured the resources within DfID for the £35 million regional programme for Africa and countries where this barbaric practice is prevalent.
	I also pay tribute to the Orchid Project, an outstanding charity that works on this subject. It pointed out something extremely important: the prevalent coincidence of FGM and other conditions—such as early marriage and ill health—which damage women. Will the Minister tell us whether DfID, in its programmes abroad, and the MoJ and the Home Office here, will ensure that their programmes on forced marriage go in sync with the programmes on FGM, so that there can be a double benefit?
	The Orchid Project pointed out quite rightly that FGM is not a religious practice, it is a cultural practice. However, it said that in attempting to overcome this, it is very important to get religious leaders within communities on one side. Therefore, will the Minister say whether, in the DfID programme, and in the programmes with diaspora communities here, we are targeting religious leaders—and, in particular, men who have influence in forming opinion in communities within which this practice occurs? If we do that, we will be able to support those very brave young women such as Leyla Hussein, who herself was cut at the age of seven in Somalia and who was so eloquent in that amazing documentary, “The Cruel Cut”.
	Finally, will the Minister tell us whether, in the DfID programme, there will be a particular concentration on those regions of countries where there has been a significant move towards abandoning the practice?
	From that, we will learn what it was that enabled people—men and women within those communities—to build resistance to this practice, and this knowledge could then be transferred to places such as Somalia and Sudan and some parts of western Africa where, unfortunately, this practice remains all too prevalent, with all the horror and destruction for individual young women that that entails.

Lord Patel: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the four noble Baronesses who have spoken before me with such feeling and passion. I thank my noble friend Lady Cox for securing this debate today. She is quite right to focus on the key issue: what are we doing, apart from legislation, to stop this horrible, horrific procedure being carried out in the United Kingdom? Through the work I do with a charity, mostly in Africa, I have seen the results in many of these women. I work with a charity that trains doctors and nurses in Africa to help women who have obstetric fistula. There are 2 million such women. FGM contributes to these women having difficulty in labour and the resulting fistulas. It also contributes to them having a higher incidence of postpartum haemorrhage and to them dying because of it. FGM, therefore, does not just cause horrific suffering: it causes death.
	Why, after the series of legislation championed by the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, have we not had any prosecutions in the United Kingdom? Is it because those who are involved—members of the family, those who carry out this procedure and even the health professionals—do not fear this legislation, or are they ignorant of it, or both? The fact that there have been no prosecutions must make them feel safe. I know that my own college—I am a fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians—and other colleges have produced guidance and asked for more policies to stop this procedure being continued in the United Kingdom.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said that we needed a joined-up approach to this; that all the agencies, including the NHS and the child protection agencies, should work together. We now need leadership from the Government, and I hope that the Minister—who I know feels passionately about this—will indicate some new policy measures from the Government to help stop this. Everybody who has spoken and will speak today, and others who have spoken previously in recent weeks when we have had debates and Questions relating to this, have all felt that something must be done in the United Kingdom to stop this horrific process going on. The noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, quite rightly asked that we start that process in 2014. I think that she is being generous: we should start tomorrow.

Lord Parekh: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Patel. I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on securing this debate. In the three minutes that I have at my disposal, I want to make five very quick points. First, I think that prosecution has to be far more vigorous than it has been. In order that that can happen, we
	need to do two things: medical professionals and care workers ought to be more forthcoming in providing evidence; and the Crown Prosecution Service should restructure its criteria of proof and responsibility.
	Secondly, since we have only limited resources and energy, we should concentrate on those groups where this is far more prevalent, rather than talk about all ethnic minorities or all Muslims or whatever. For example, in Somalia, it is 98% prevalent; among the Egyptians, it is about 91%; it is 74% among Ethiopians; but when you come to Ghana or Uganda, it is barely 1%. It is important to select groups and concentrate on them.
	Thirdly, we should be increasing awareness of the consequences of female genital mutilation, not that women do not know. After all, many of those who perpetrate this have already suffered: they know the consequences. I have in mind the young girls within the family—trying to educate them on what this involves, and getting them to put pressure on their own parents and peers and others within their own communities. In dealing with many ugly practices, getting young people to organise and mobilise in this way is generally very effective.
	Fourthly, we must find some way of de-legitimising this practice in the eyes of those who engage in it. They engage in it not because they want to harm their children; they know it is bad. They do it not just under social pressure—they do it because they think they are doing what is right. They think it is right because they think that it disciplines them in sexuality and so on. We need to involve religious leaders and cultural leaders, and get them to convince the people involved that this is not the way that the practice can ever be justified. Here it is important to talk in idioms that people can understand, rather than talk about human rights and why women are being deprived of sexual pleasure. That is not the language in which you can communicate with people who do not place much value either on human rights or on sexual pleasure. One has to talk in terms of idioms and arguments which make sense to these people.
	Finally, it is quite important to bear in mind that we are not objecting to female genital mutilation per se. Whenever I have talked to these women, they have said that they know that some nuns undergo the practice voluntarily. They know that some adult African women have undergone the practice voluntarily after the birth of their first child in order to convince themselves that they are mothers and not children. They also know that, for all kinds of reasons, every year 200 to 300 adult women undergo it in our own society for all kinds of reasons. It is therefore important to bear in mind that we are objecting to this practice because it involves small children, and we ought not to lose sight of that particular focus.

Lord Loomba: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on securing this important debate on issues relating to FGM, and I commend her for the important work that she does with the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust in supporting communities affected by oppression, exploitation and persecution.
	I have spoken many times in this House on issues affecting women and children from developing countries, and relish the opportunity to add to this debate on FGM.
	Women’s health and empowerment rightly feature in the UN’s flagship millennium development goals, launched in 2000. However, it is widely thought that not enough progress has been made in these important areas. I am therefore encouraged that our Government are taking steps to improve this. As we have heard from many speakers today, FGM has a devastating effect on women, even on our own doorstep in the UK. The facts and figures on how many women and girls are still subjected to this barbaric act are staggering.
	Over the past couple of years there has been a steep rise in awareness of FGM, and I am encouraged that it is the ambition of the Government, led by my right honourable friend Lynne Featherstone in the Department for International Development, to eradicate FGM within a generation. Lynne has led the way in our Government on breaking the taboo on this topic. At the UN Status of Women meeting in March 2013, as we have heard from my noble friend Lady Barker, our Government pledged up to £35 million to help reduce FGM by 30% in at least 10 countries within the next five years. I hope that the Minister can assure us that that money is being put to good use. I am glad that this UK funding will be targeted directly within local communities in many countries across the world, as that is where real change can begin.
	On 20 December 2012, almost a year ago, the UN passed its resolution on,
	“Intensifying global efforts for the elimination of female genital mutilations”.
	We must build on this momentum by ensuring that the post-2015 MDG framework contains a strong emphasis on eliminating violence against women, including FGM.

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, I thank noble Lords, particularly of course the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for introducing the debate and for giving us so many statistics and graphic details, which noble Lords will be glad to hear I do not intend to repeat. FGM is a terrible practice and a very ancient one, as is male circumcision. No one really knows why these things started—perhaps we shall never know—but we know that FGM is still prevalent in the world today, and for women it is the most horrible and dangerous practice.
	I want to say what in my experience has gone on in Parliament. I came into Parliament in 1997 with a lot of women parliamentarians, and I quickly joined the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population Development and Reproductive Health. Of course there was the 1985 Act that prohibited FGM—everyone knows about that—but by the year 2000 that all-party group had produced a report on female genital mutilation, which is still up on the group’s website. Following that report, Christine McCafferty MP, the chair of the group at the time, took a 10-minute rule Bill through Parliament to prevent FGM from being perpetrated on girls taken out of the country. It was illegal within the country but we wanted to ensure that girls could not be taken out in the school holidays. This was followed by Ann Clwyd—supported in the House of
	Commons, I may say, by me—introducing an amendment to the 1985 Act, and in 2003 Royal Assent was given to making FGM illegal if girls were taken out of the country to have it done.
	Nevertheless, it has taken 10 years to get the broader media and parliamentarians interested and, as we have heard, no prosecutions of individuals have taken place in that time, the main reason being that although, for example, 63 cases were reported between November 2009 and November 2011, no individual would give evidence. Girls stay loyal to their families. The noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, has to be congratulated; throughout this time she has campaigned on this issue and constantly drawn attention to this dreadful abuse.
	Some 18 months ago, my all-party group suggested that we had a meeting with the Director of Public Prosecutions—Keir Starmer, at the time—to discuss why no prosecutions were taking place. He organised a round-table meeting; Jane Ellison, the chair of the all-party group on FGM, came to it, as did many social workers, doctors, teachers and NGOs. He got together a huge collegiate group of people who were concerned about this practice. After several meetings, there is now a countrywide alert for teachers, doctors, social workers and so on to report any suspicions that they may have.
	I understand too that the Home Affairs Select Committee is to investigate the matter, but I contend that we have had enough reports, investigations and round-table meetings. What we need is a prosecution, and Keir Starmer assured us a few months ago that there was one in the pipeline. That is what we need. We do not want the victim to be harmed, but we need a prosecution that is well publicised in order to alert everyone in the country to this awful practice.

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale: I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on her comprehensive and passionate introduction to this debate, which I suppose was the catalyst for so many other outstanding contributions. I associate myself particularly with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, on the need to change culture, not just to legislate, and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, about the importance of changing attitudes to child protection.
	In the time available, I want to add two things. First, to my eternal shame, I was shocked to discover, early in my time as First Minister of Scotland, that female genital mutilation was happening in a country that I thought I knew very well but clearly did not know as a whole. It was drawn to my attention by Khadija Coll of the African and Caribbean Network in Glasgow, who has been a relentless campaigner in Scotland on this issue since.
	We in Scotland legislated eventually, passing new legislation in 2005. I make a plea again today that we ensure that the approach taken to this issue in the United Kingdom is indeed taken across the United Kingdom. There is a danger that the United Kingdom is seen as a soft touch in Europe on this issue, but there also now a danger within the UK that Scotland is seen as a soft touch. It is vital that we have a cohesive approach to this among the different jurisdictions and secure a prosecution wherever it is possible in the UK as a start towards further prosecutions in the future.
	The second point I want to make arises from a very interesting meeting that took place in the House last Monday evening when a representative of the Crown Prosecution Service said that one of the reasons that there is a problem with prosecutions in the UK is that the legislation covers only British nationals. I want to make two points about that. First, if it is the case, we need to address it quickly. There would be widespread support in this House and in the other place for any amendments that were required. Secondly, even if that is the case, it is not a reason not to prosecute. If I had taken my daughter at the age of eight or nine to a neighbour’s house to have her tongue and fingers cut off, I would have been prosecuted. Even if there are problems with the existing FGM legislation, there is no justification for allowing it to continue without prosecutions, given the raft of other legislation available to prosecuting authorities on violence, child abuse, child protection and so on. I make a plea to the Government to take up the suggestions made by other speakers, particularly the noble Baronesses who spoke earlier in the debate, and to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service sees this for what it is. It is violence; it is child abuse; and it needs to be tackled in our country and tackled quickly.

Lord Berkeley of Knighton: My Lords, I thank and congratulate my noble friend Lady Cox on again airing this important subject. It is outrageous that such a practice should be happening in what we like to think of as a civilised society. Having said that, I do not doubt for one minute that the Government and the various departments involved find this as shocking as the rest of us. However, it is not resulting in prosecutions, so I shall look at why that might be.
	When the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, asked a Question about this a few weeks ago, the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, replied very sensitively about why France has had some success. He said that there is compulsory examination. I took his point that that would not necessarily go down very well in this country. Looking at children’s private parts is a very tricky subject, but in France, they expect people who come there to behave like the French. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, made a very good point that even if we do not go as far as examination—and I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about that—there might be some aspects of French law that we should take and make it clear that anybody committing this act is committing a crime.
	We cannot overstate that there are no medical reasons for FGM. There are no religious reasons in the Bible, the Koran or any holy scripture that justify it. It is about cultural tradition. I completely accept the Government’s point that this is a very tricky area to deal with. However, we have to deal with it. There have to be prosecutions. Reading all the papers that have been assembled, mainly by government agencies, I am struck by the fact that they feel there is a lack of leadership and joined-up thinking. For example, even those cases that come to the attention of the professionals are not being reported as well as they might be. There are initiatives that, with the greatest respect, the
	Government could take to improve this situation. Let us not wait another 10 years for a prosecution. Let us not wait another five years. Let us not wait another year. We need to see some effective action.
	My final point is that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about the success of Orchid. It is an example we should look at because it has had real success in various African—mainly sub-Saharan—countries in persuading people that this practice should change.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who initiated this important debate and asked some important and pertinent questions, as did my noble friend Lady Rendell in her characteristically forthright speech.
	Every day, 8,000 girls in the world are subjected to the practice of female genital mutilation. This intimate act of controlling women’s and girls’ bodies is not only a human rights violation, it is also, in the UK, child abuse. It has been illegal in the UK since 1985, and since 2003 Britons have been able to be prosecuted for acts of FGM abroad, but it is still practised. The report, Tackling FGM in the UK, produced by the Royal College of Nursing, asserts that 66,000 women in England and Wales have undergone female genital mutilation and that more than 24,000 girls under 15 are at risk. In Europe, it is estimated that 500,000 girls and women have been subjected to FGM and that an additional 180,000 are at risk each year.
	Despite FGM being classed as a serious criminal offence in the UK, there have been no prosecutions. In the recent Channel 4 programme “The Cruel Cut”, you must weep with the girl who at seven returned from being taken overseas during school holidays to be cut. When she returned, she confided in her teacher, who ignored her cry for help. That child was doubly betrayed by the adults who should have been protecting her, and no action was taken against her parents. We should be ashamed in the UK that thousands of girls in danger of genital mutilation are being failed by our education, health and justice systems.
	While I can only welcome the fact that an interministerial group is addressing this issue, along with other forms of violence against women, and that FGM is high on its agenda, there are two questions that I would like to ask Minister. First, is it really necessary for the Health Minister, Jane Ellison, to conduct yet another inquiry into FGM? I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge: we know what the problem is. What new information is there to be found after the reports that have been done, including that by the Royal College of Nursing? If it is to happen, when will it happen? How long will it take, and how long will we need to wait for further action to be taken?
	Secondly, since the Channel 4 programme, the 7 year-old girl has met Jeremy Hunt, and to his credit and that of the Home Secretary, Theresa May, they have committed themselves to action. Indeed, on 7 November, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in responding to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, said:
	“Female genital mutilation is child abuse and violence against girls and women. It is also a criminal offence, and cutters and perpetrators need to be brought to justice”.—[Official Report, 7/11/13; col. 326.]
	We all agree. Despite this, it would seem from the press reports I have read that Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education, refuses to make FGM mandatory in child protection. Can the Minister tell us whether that is true and explain how we can expect teachers to take this issue seriously and make FGM part of their duty of care to children when it is not part of the guidelines? FGM is not recognised as child abuse. It needs to be treated in UK law as such.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for securing this very important debate and for introducing it so effectively. She rightly magnified what she described as the cries of those who are demanding that this terrible practice is brought to an end. Like other noble Lords, I am struck by the level of concern in this House and across Parliament. The noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, used to be something of a lone voice in this area in the House of Lords. I hope she is pleased that the voices are now multiplying, not least in the media, including, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mentioned, in “Casualty”.
	In order to tackle FGM, it is critical that we raise awareness. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, that we need to start today, not tomorrow. We cannot leave it until tomorrow. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that the Government are absolutely clear that FGM is a barbaric violation of human rights. We are entirely committed to tackling FGM, both here in the UK and overseas. That is why, as my noble friends Lady Barker and Lord Loomba said, the Department for International Development is investing £35 million to tackle FGM in at least 15 of the most affected countries with the objective of reducing the incidence of FGM by 30% in at least 10 countries over the next five years. As my noble friend Lord Loomba said, my honourable friend Lynne Featherstone, both as Parliamentary Under-Secretary at DfID and as the Government’s champion to combat violence against women and girls, has seized this issue with enormous determination.
	My noble friend Lady Hodgson showed how deeply rooted these practices are but how there is hope of change within those communities. I point out to my noble friend that DfID’s approach is indeed to support an African-led movement towards ending FGM. We recognise the importance of this. We are taking an approach that combines community-based work with legislation and we are working with the UN joint programme on exactly this approach. My noble friend is right to highlight that.
	My noble friend Lady Barker asked about linking FGM with work on the prevention of forced marriage. She is right to say that there are parallels between these two harmful practices. In DfID’s international work, where FGM and child marriage co-exist, they are addressed simultaneously at the community level. My noble friend also asked about work identifying men within the regions where FGM takes place, and, of course, this is relevant within the United Kingdom, too, to encourage others to oppose FGM. We fully recognise that and our experience in Africa shows that men’s involvement is very important. In most countries
	where cutting occurs, the majority of boys and men, when we are engaged with them, think that FGM should end. That is a key to moving this forward.
	Significant progress is being made, which my noble friend Lady Hodgson referred to and which may reassure my noble friend Lady Barker. There have been declines in the practice in certain areas. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, was quite right to highlight the countries where there is a high incidence and those where it is much lower, and to say that we need to concentrate on those high-incidence countries.
	The international investment will also reap dividends in tackling FGM in the United Kingdom by supporting the diaspora communities in advocating for change in their countries of origin and developing a global social change communications programme. This will complement a raft of action that we are taking in the United Kingdom to end FGM. Most noble Lords concentrated particularly on the United Kingdom, although often setting it in the context of what is happening in other countries. I wish to make it absolutely clear to the noble Baronesses, Lady Cox and Lady Thornton, that we identify FGM as child abuse, and political sensitivities must not get in the way of eradicating this illegal practice. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that culture can never be allowed to trump the law.
	To further improve our understanding in the United Kingdom, the Home Office is part-funding a new study into the prevalence rates of FGM in England and Wales, to be published in March. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked whether we really need it. The last study of this kind dates back to 2007 and estimated that some 20,000 girls could be at risk of FGM every year. We can take forward all sorts of measures that we know we need, but it also helps to get a better sense of what the evidence is now.
	The Department of Health is working with the Health & Social Care Information Centre to look at how best the NHS can collect and share data to build a better picture on prevalence from across the NHS. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked about the meeting that my honourable friend Jane Ellison at the Department of Health chaired on Monday with experts from FGM clinics, police and key charity organisations. She set out a feasibility study on collecting data and asked the group to help take that forward. That will all feed in to the action that we are taking.
	Internationally, UNICEF has published a report casting additional light on how the practice is changing in the 29 countries where it is concentrated and on the progress made since its first report in 2005. It is important that these new insights inform the design of policies and programmes, both in countries where it has been practised for generations and in areas where it is relatively new and associated with immigration. I hope that helps to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that the evidence is there for a useful purpose and not at all to delay action. The Government recognise that, in order to tackle FGM here in the UK, we need to put prevention at the heart of our work. We need all parts of the system—criminal justice, education, health, housing and benefits—to work together to identify,
	protect and support victims and to bring perpetrators to justice. Indeed, noble Lords around the House were making that case.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised the issue of routine examinations of girls to check for FGM. From birth until they leave school, children and young people are routinely investigated by healthcare staff in the Healthy Child programme, which covers England. Prevention and safeguarding underpin this programme. Noble Lords will have noted what my noble friend Lord Howe said. I am sure also that, as discussions occur within the Department of Health about how best to take this forward, the points that noble Lords have made will be pursued.
	We have distributed more than 40,000 leaflets and posters and have completed a pilot on A Statement Opposing Female Genital Mutilation, a pocket-sized leaflet designed to be used when travelling abroad. We sent out more than 37,000 of these leaflets during the pilot, and evaluation responses have told us that it has been widely accepted by communities affected by FGM and that it is a valuable resource to help practitioners start conversations about FGM. I have seen a copy of the leaflet and am very happy to supply a copy to noble Lords who wish to see it.
	In addition, a dedicated FGM helpline hosted by the NSPCC was launched in the summer. A specially trained team is on hand to receive calls from professionals and members of the public, either victims or potential victims of FGM, and from friends or relatives concerned about somebody who might be at risk. Noble Lords may be interested to know that, as of last week, there have been 132 calls to the helpline, 55 of which were referred to the relevant police force. The European Commission is also stepping up on this. It has announced funding of €3.7 million to spread a clear message about zero tolerance of all forms of violence against women and girls, including FGM. We have bid for €300,000 from this fund.
	We have published FGM multi-agency guidelines for front-line professionals to raise awareness and help safeguard girls and women from abuse. We will shortly be providing local areas with a resource pack to emphasise what works in tackling FGM and to encourage commissioners of services to consider measures that they could put in place to prevent and tackle FGM.
	I fully understand the frustration that there has still not been a prosecution for FGM in this country. However, I am greatly encouraged by the renewed commitment of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to overcome these barriers and the DPP’s assessment that it is only a matter of time before a perpetrator is brought to justice. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and others have said. It is extremely useful that this debate is taking place tonight because I can inform the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and other noble Lords that my honourable friend Norman Baker at the Home Office is meeting the DPP tomorrow about this issue, and I will feed back to him the issues that we have discussed tonight.
	This has been a passionate debate. It is very clear that we can and must eradicate this terrible practice. I assure noble Lords that we understand that. We are
	working on this internationally in an unprecedented way and we are pushing aside all the boulders in the way in the United Kingdom. I am sure that the cogency of this case will not be lost on the DPP and others working in this field.
	Sitting suspended.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
	 — 
	Committee (6th Day) (Continued)

Clause 121: Application of IPCC provisions to contractors
	Amendment 56QA
	 Moved by Baroness Henig
	56QA: Clause 121, page 90, line 25, after “person” insert “who is licensed and who works for a company licensed by the Security Industry Authority and”

Baroness Henig: My Lords, in moving this amendment I must first declare interests as a former chair of the Security Industry Authority, and as a current adviser to the British Security Industry Association and a Scottish private security company.
	At this stage these are probing amendments to try to find out to what extent the Government are retreating from their commitments to the private security industry, first made three years ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, in this House, and again last autumn by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, at a Security Industry Authority conference, when he pledged that the Government would introduce business licensing of companies in the private security sector along with individual registration by the end of this calendar year—which is to say, in the next three weeks. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, also promised appropriate enforcement powers to back up the new arrangements.
	We are in quite a novel situation. An industry is begging the Government to regulate its businesses with a range of proportionate penalties for non-compliance, and despite the promises and the Home Office consultation, which shows that the great majority of representative bodies and companies support that, nothing is happening. How strange, then, that in other arenas the Government are rushing to regulate: trade union activity, to give one example.
	In the context of these amendments I must spell out why business licensing of private security companies that work alongside the police and of those that carry out extradition escort duties is so necessary and so important. It is because we need to continue to drive up standards across the industry. That started with individual licensing, which was introduced 10 years ago but which must continue, to protect the public and to win both their confidence and that of the strategic partners with whom private security companies work, such as the Government and the police.
	We also need to tackle the continuing influence of organised crime gangs in this important sector and to focus regulation on companies while reducing the burden on individuals. The public need to be able to hold companies to account for failures and wrongdoing, not just individuals. Thus far, the Government have proposed only secondary legislation to introduce a form of mandatory approvals for businesses under existing legislation. They have not, they told industry representatives, identified the opportunity for the necessary primary legislation. Given the wide-ranging nature of this Bill, I am surprised that it has not proved possible to insert into it somewhere along the line business licensing for private security companies.
	The need for primary legislation is urgent; the benefits that the change would bring are significant for legitimate businesses and for public safety. Furthermore, the uncertainty created by the failure to bring forward this legislation is having an adverse impact on businesses and industry leaders, because they have to cope with continuing lack of information as to how their industry will be regulated, if and when changes will be made, and how much it will cost. My amendments at this stage seek to ensure that companies working alongside the police, and those involved in extradition escorting must be regulated by the Security Industry Authority. My objective is to ensure that all businesses providing security services in the areas covered by the Private Security Industry Act are licensed and that there are powers available to the regulator to allow effective and proportionate enforcement of the regime.
	The question that I want to put to the Minister and the coalition Government is this. Are you still intending to carry through the changes you promised in 2011 and said were so urgent that they had to be implemented by the end of this year, or have you decided to abandon them? If the latter is the case, can you please tell the industry and the regulator, so that we can decide how to respond? If you are still going ahead, please could you come back at Report with some appropriate amendments? If you are not able to do that, I and colleagues will be happy to draft some new clauses for you to adopt. But please make up your minds on this issue, which is very important, not just for the industry but for public protection. I beg to move.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: I have added my name to this amendment, and refer Members to my former policing interests in the register. I have long felt that it was important to ensure that adequate training was given to anyone from the private security sector who would be working with the general public and, especially, the police.
	Many years ago, when I was a member of my police authority in North Yorkshire, we pioneered doorkeepers, who were specially trained and motivated to work in a range of areas, in particular in nightclubs. Up until that time, it was customary to employ hefty and largely untrained men who would quickly get involved in any scuffles that were going on in the nightclub, or outside it, and who escalated the incident more often than not. Eventually, the police felt that they needed to do something about this and proposed that they trained the doorkeepers. They received a certificate at the end of their training, which became the basis of our having
	properly trained people dealing with potentially difficult situations, with the help and support of police officers who knew their abilities and limitations.
	Fast forward a lot of years to the introduction of the Security Industry Authority, which regulated the private security industry and introduced individual licensing, which has proved to be an enormous success and gained, as we have heard, much support from both the public and police, who saw their registration as being a sign that they had been properly trained and accredited. But it should not end there, and this is the purpose of bringing this probing amendment to your Lordships’ attention. Accountability for actions must not be simply laid at the door of individuals. Companies have a great deal of responsibility in this area and they, too, need to be held accountable if they have been lax about ensuring the proper training and professionalism of their operatives.
	We have, I hope, gone long past the time when we saw rogue companies getting away with questionable practices, and unless proper regulation is undertaken we may find ourselves once again in a position of trying to fend off organised crime, which will impact on legitimate businesses. You can be sure that the rogue operators will be looking carefully at what is proposed in the Bill so that they can bypass having to regulate their staff and businesses, especially those who will be working with the police.
	However, the words in the briefing note—which was kindly sent to me by the Home Office and I thank it for that—do not really give me much comfort. The consultation proposed,
	“a phased transition to a new regulatory regime of business licensing, together with some changes to how individuals are licensed to work within the industry. Following the consultation, the Home Office is enacting reforms in two stages, with provisions that require primary legislation being implemented later, so that the industry can begin to benefit from business regulation introduced by secondary legislation as soon as possible. We are working towards businesses being able to apply for a licence from April 2014”.
	In the mean time, what has happened? Businesses do not need to bother ensuring that they will be able to comply with the spirit of regulation. The police need to have confidence in the people they are operating alongside. The public also need to be confident that private security personnel are properly registered and accredited and that companies which make a lot of money out of guarding, escorting and handling extremely important items and persons can be held to account for their actions. This was promised and I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, who has an enormous amount of experience in these matters, that the proposals given to this House previously have not been abandoned.

Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington: I support the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig and Lady Harris of Richmond. I also remember the promises made to this House by Ministers who preceded the noble Lord. There has been a long history in relation to the private security industry and I declare my interest as chairman of Skills for Security, which does all the training for the private security industry. I have been in that position for some time.
	The history of this goes way back. The police service has had grave concerns over the past 10 to 15 years about rogue companies in the private security industry, with some issues that were very much into the criminal arena of behaviour. It surely makes sense for there to be an approach that follows the promises made to this House and talks about the responsibility not just of individuals but of companies. Large companies in this country have a responsibility. They do a very good and important job in the private security industry. It makes sense for these companies to be held accountable as an identity rather than individuals within the company. It follows government policy in terms of making companies responsible for the negligent and highly negligent actions of their employees. It would ensure that companies can be held to account and investigated by the IPCC, something we talked about earlier in this House. It would also address the continuing uncertainty that is impacting on business planning, which some of us involved in this area have identified with other people also talking to us about their concerns.
	Everyone in this House will know about the increase in organised crime. A number of organised crime gangs operate in this area. Some of them infiltrate companies and some are part and parcel of companies. It makes sense, if that is the case, that companies in general should be held accountable. The other area which is important—and my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond talked about it—is training. It is something I know a little about, having borne that responsibility for some time. It is essential that when training is done it is done with certainty. That means that if there is accountability, it is there for those people in the company as a whole, whether it be big companies such as G4S or the smaller companies that some of us are involved in.
	If this amendment were taken up—it is a probing amendment, of course—it would add to public confidence. The police service in general would know where it stood and government agencies also would know exactly what they were working with and exactly how to tackle some of the difficulties that sometimes happen in the private security industry.

Lord Rosser: My Lords, I will be brief. My noble friend Lady Henig indicated that this is a probing amendment which has been tabled as there are doubts about whether undertakings given previously still stand. In view of the obvious importance of this issue, which is clear from the contributions made to this debate, we shall certainly listen with interest to the Minister’s answer.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank noble Lords for their contributions and for the concise way in which they have addressed this important issue. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, for presenting these amendments—not that I am going to accept them—as the SIA is one of my departmental responsibilities within the Home Office. She mentioned commitments that I made last year at the annual general meeting of the SIA. I made similar commitments by video link; unfortunately, I could not be there as I was dealing with a Bill and could not be in two places at the same time.
	I reiterate our commitment to the SIA. No one knows more than the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, how important that body is, given her distinguished service as its chairman. We also appreciate the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, on the importance of business licensing for the development of the industry. We are at one in that aim and we have not been idle on this issue. There has been a public consultation on the process and we have published the Government’s response to it. As the noble Baroness may know, we do not need primary legislation —we do not need to put anything in the Bill—to introduce business licensing. It would be introduced by secondary legislation and would cover issues such as door supervision, security guarding, cash and valuables in transit, close protection, CCTV and public surveillance, and key holding—the traditional areas. However, noble Lords will be aware that one of the consequences of the Leveson report is that private investigators should also come within the ambit of the regulatory body—the SIA. Therefore, there is a lot to do. I reassure my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond that we are still very much on target.
	I turn to the amendments. Amendment 56QA seeks to link the application of the complaints and misconduct framework overseen by the IPCC to SIA-regulated businesses. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said, the police work with the private sector on many different aspects of their work, many of which are outside the security industry and, as such, it was never the intention that the provisions of the Private Security Industry Act would apply. I shall describe the sorts of thing that I am talking about. These include, for example, call handlers in police control rooms or inquiry office staff. In addition, forensic science work, which is, of course, integral to the police service, is regulated by the forensic science regulator, and would be excluded.
	The intention behind Clause 121 is to ensure that the oversight of complaints and conduct matters by the IPCC extends to all private contractors, subcontractors and their employees carrying out functions for the police where those functions have been traditionally carried out by police officers and police staff, so that where there has been a move towards the civilianisation of police functions, these should be covered. Police forces are increasingly entering into contracts with private sector organisations—I come from Lincolnshire, a county which probably pioneered that—many of which fall outside the SIA-regulated regime, but which should, none the less, be subject to investigation by the IPCC for wrongdoing. I think that the public would rightly expect this to be the case.
	Amendment 95ZA raises similar issues in the context of the transit through the UK of people being extradited from one country to another. Again, I understand the noble Baroness’s concern to prevent untrained and potentially unsuitable individuals being given delegated authority for facilitating these transits.
	Although I agree with the intention behind the amendment, I believe that we can achieve all this through other, more workable means. I say that because the Government plan to amend this clause in recognition of similar concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—namely, that the
	power to specify descriptions of those who might in future facilitate the transit through the UK of persons being extradited from and to another country is cast in wide terms. The committee felt that this should be seen in the context of the powers of authorised officers, which include the power to detain persons in custody, and therefore that the delegated power should either be circumscribed in the Bill or subject to the affirmative procedure.
	We have listened to the views of the committee and, in response, have tabled an amendment which will apply the affirmative resolution procedure to this order-making power. This will mean that the only categories of persons able to undertake escort duties will be those approved by both Houses. An example of the type of persons who might undertake this escort role is Border Force officials. Whoever is empowered to carry out the role will be subject to the extradition codes of practice, which are based on the equivalent PACE provisions. I hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured that there will be proper oversight and scrutiny of those who undertake quasi-police functions and exercise police powers, and that she will be content to withdraw her amendment.
	In relation to the SIA, the Private Security Industry Act 2001, which underpins the SIA’s regulatory activities, specifically states that licensing requirements do not apply to activities carried out by a detainee custody officer and a prison custody officer, both as defined by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Therefore, the effect of this amendment would be to create conflicting legislation, with a question as to which Act was supposed to apply to these people. The SIA currently has no remit for regulating this type of activity; nor is it the Government’s intention for it to do so in the future.
	I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Henig—I keep thinking of her as “my noble friend”, although, according to the traditions of the House, I should not call her that—will accept my commitment on business licensing and on the determination of the Government to continue their policy objective of advancing the interests of the SIA. We see it as developing an increasingly important role in public protection in this country.

Baroness Henig: I thank the Minister for his response. I listened very carefully and particularly took note of the points that he made about escorting for extradition proceedings. However, I am somewhat disappointed with some of the general points that he made. He said that the Government had not been idle. Three years have passed and nothing has happened. I do not know what definition of “idleness” the Minister is using but in my book three years is quite a long time for nothing to happen. He assured the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, that the Government were very much on target. However, they clearly are not on target, because both the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, said that this whole process was going to be completed by the end of this year. Therefore, how can he say that the Government are very much on target when they patently are not? I am sorry but that is not very reassuring.
	There was mention of secondary legislation. I have to say to the Minister that the problem with secondary legislation is that there cannot be a range of enforcement mechanisms; nor can there be appropriate sanctions.
	The industry has made it clear that to have business licensing without appropriate enforcement mechanisms is a recipe for disaster. It means that the good companies will go along with things and the bad companies will not face any sanctions. To businesses, that is a worse prospect than no legislation. They are very alarmed about that secondary legislation.
	I know that businesses will be very disappointed with the Minister’s response. He has offered nothing. He has offered no assurances and has not said that the Government will bring anything back. We have here very appropriate legislation for something far more substantive. I have some sympathy for the Minister who I think would like to move further. I am quite sure that the problems are not necessarily in the Home Office but in other parts of government. None the less, the industry is disappointed because the opportunity is here to take a big step towards what it wants and what obviously would be of benefit to the public, but it is not being taken. I understand, and I sympathise with the fact, that industry leaders, probably even today, have made it clear that they will withdraw from a lot of co-operation with the Home Office because of the disappointment and frustration that they feel at the Government’s inability to take this forward. For the life of me, I cannot understand the problem with going ahead with business licensing in a proper manner through primary legislation.
	At this stage, I am happy to withdraw this probing amendment but some of us may want to look at this issue again to see whether there are amendments that we could table on Report, which perhaps might find a more favourable response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 56QA withdrawn.
	Clause 121 agreed.
	Clauses 122 to 125 agreed.
	Clause 126: Appointment of chief officers of police
	Amendment 56R
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	56R: Clause 126, page 97, line 37, leave out “the College of Policing” and insert “regulations made by the Secretary of State”

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, these government amendments implement the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in relation to Clause 126. They ensure that there is parliamentary scrutiny of any decisions to designate countries, police forces and ranks under that clause. It is entirely appropriate, given its role, that the College of Policing should play a central part in the designation process, so the clause continues to require the Home Secretary to act only after receiving its recommendation. It will remain up to the Home Secretary whether she implements the college’s designations. However, by putting the designations in secondary legislation subject
	to the negative resolution procedure, we are ensuring that there is an appropriate opportunity for Parliament to consider them. I commend these amendments to the Committee.
	For the time being, I will listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Blair, has to say about his amendment, which is in this group, before I respond to the debate that is likely to follow.

Lord Blair of Boughton: My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my registered interests in relation to policing. Amendment 105 stands not only in my name but also in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Condon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. The noble Baroness is not able to be in your Lordships’ House today and has asked me to present her apologies for that. However, I am in a position to say that she remains in firm support of this amendment. Amendment 105 is not affected by, nor affects in any specific terms, the other amendments in this group put forward by the Minister. It is not an amendment to Clause 126 but is about Clause 126. It is actually an addition to the Bill’s last clause, Clause 160—the enactment clause—and can be found at the end of today’s Marshalled List. I am grateful to the Minister for his part in arranging to have it debated now as it is related not to the whole Bill, nor even to the enactment of the whole Bill, but only to the enactment of Section 126.
	The amendment is triggered by concerns about how the opening of senior UK police posts will affect those few police chief officer posts that are deeply concerned with UK national security and intelligence. It suggests that the Government should seek the advice of the Intelligence and Security Committee about this point before Section 126 is enacted.
	After that, the first thing to say is that neither the noble Lord, Lord Condon—who will be speaking later —nor I have any objections in principle to the appointment of senior officers from abroad, notably those from Commonwealth countries, to UK police positions. That would be hypocritical in that senior UK officers have reasonably often and recently commanded police forces in Commonwealth countries, including Australia.
	However, it is pertinent to note that no UK officer has ever been considered to command the Australian Federal Police or for appointment to be director of the FBI or the commissioner of the NYPD for a particular reason. Those posts are concerned with the national security of the United States or Australia, and the postholders routinely share secret intelligence with their national security services. Here our amendment comes to the point. There are similar posts in the UK. There are senior police officers intricately involved in the security and intelligence arrangements of the UK. The amendment picks out four of them and seeks to understand how the Government foresee that these posts can be held by non-UK citizens. It is not easy to see how that would be possible.
	The first two of the four we have selected are: the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who is responsible to the Home Secretary for overall national co-ordination of police counterterrorism activity in the whole of the UK, excluding Northern Ireland; and the deputy commissioner, who holds the full powers
	and duties of the commissioner in the absence of him or her. That is why these two posts alone are royal appointments on the recommendation of the Home Secretary and are not appointed and never have been by a police authority, the police and crime commissioner or even the Mayor of London.
	The third post is one of the currently four assistant commissioners of the Met currently described as assistant commissioner specialist operations, appointed by the commissioner to have full-time, day-to-day responsibility for national counterterrorism policing and liaison with the security services. As an assistant commissioner, he or she—it is currently a she—is one of the most senior chief constables in the UK. He or she chairs the ACPO committee on terrorism, ex officio, and has executive jurisdiction throughout the UK except for Northern Ireland. Counterterrorism is not a devolved matter. General policing is, but not counterterrorism, which is what makes these posts so special.
	The fourth post is that of the director-general of the new National Crime Agency. We have included this post partially because the NCA has been selected recently by the Government as a potential successor to hold the Met’s current CT responsibilities. But in any event, he or she will already handle secret material in relation to organised crime and child pornography, both of which have significant international dimensions.
	All these postholders must be security cleared to the very high level known as developed vetting. The first requirement for DV, as it is known, is that, as far as I and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, can recall, the individual must be a UK citizen and must have lived in the UK for a decade. If that is not true or has been changed, it would be useful to know, so I hope the Minister can tell the Committee.
	It is extremely difficult to imagine these postholders being able to carry out their roles without access to the full range of CT intelligence, which a person will not have if they are not DVed. Furthermore, particularly in the case of a US rather than perhaps a Commonwealth citizen, it is possible that a foreign postholder would inevitably have mixed allegiances. Many counterterrorist operations are highly international and fast moving, being briefed upwards to Prime Ministers and Presidents. It is inevitable that, during a near crisis, different Governments will have different security priorities at different times. COBRA, in which the commissioner and the assistant commissioner specialist operations sit, battles with this regularly.
	The noble Lord, Lord Condon, will return to this matter. He will also speak about the fact that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner is responsible for the protection of the monarch and her heirs and successors, as well as the Prime Minister, some Ministers and some foreign ambassadors. We understand that appointments like these will not be undertaken lightly and that they will be political—in the best use of the word—decisions involving senior Ministers. The Government have a clear duty to lay out what mechanisms they would use to mitigate the difficulties I have outlined. In the second section of the amendment we make a proposal which provides a parliamentary solution to the problem. This suggests a delay to the enactment of Clause 126—and only that clause—until such time as the Secretary of State has sought and received advice
	from the Intelligence and Security Committee on the viability of appointing foreign nationals to these four posts and has ensured that the committee’s findings have been laid before both Houses of Parliament.
	This is not a frivolous amendment. It is about a very serious national security issue. The fact that all four noble Lords who have held the office of Metropolitan Police Commissioner are sitting here at this time of night is an indication that there may be something we need to consider. There are no vacancies at present in any of these four posts. A referral to the ISC would create no delay. If that is not what the Government wish to do, what does the Minister propose to do to mitigate this situation? I beg to move.

Lord Condon: My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 105, not seeking to undermine Clause 126 in any way. I supported Clause 126 at Second Reading and spoke of the example of a Canadian Governor of the Bank of England. I am certainly not against, in principle, the notion of exceptional overseas candidates leading police forces in the UK. Like my noble friend Lord Blair, I am merely seeking to explore the additional challenges and hurdles of appointing an overseas candidate to one of the posts mentioned in the amendment. In particular, I would like to explore the challenges of appointing an American citizen to the post of commissioner. Without overpersonalising it, I believe we got reasonably close to an attempt to appoint an American the last time there was a vacancy for that post.
	An American citizen has an unequivocal duty, first and foremost, to the laws, constitution and interests of the United States of America. Imagine an American appointed to the post of commissioner who finds himself or herself in the Cabinet Office briefing room with the Prime Minister and heads of the security services at a time of national crisis. This country and the United States of America might have subtle, or even significant, policy differences and interests at that time. In the recent past, for example, extraordinary rendition, Irish terrorism and mega-data collection have all led to subtle or significant differences between our country’s policy approach and that of the United States of America, one of our oldest allies. There are additional challenges which are not insurmountable but it is important to place on record that these issues must be taken account of at some stage when the Prime Minister and Home Secretary of the day get close to appointing an overseas candidate.
	In addition, the commissioner has a personal role in protecting the monarch andthose in the line of succession, whether they are in this country or anywhere in the world. I had the honour of holding the post of commissioner for seven years and swore an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. There will be times in the future when there may be subtle or significant differences over protection arrangements for our monarch and the line of succession when they find themselves in other parts of the world. Again, these are not insurmountable challenges but they are important considerations to have on record. No other country, as my noble friend Lord Blair has said, has even come close to considering a foreign national in an equivalent security-sensitive senior police post.
	I have two questions for the Minister. First, would there be any technical inhibitions around vetting that would prevent an overseas candidate either from carrying out the full range of their duties or from being appointed? If that hurdle is cleared, secondly, can the Minister give us some reassurance that the Prime Minister and Home Secretary of the day will take into account the issues that we have raised today before appointing an overseas candidate?

Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington: My Lords, I, too, support my noble friends Lord Blair and Lord Condon and have little to add to what they have said. However, I would flip the coin on to the other side and ask the Minister and the Government what the strong reasons are for doing this. If there are strong reasons, let us hear them.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I am sure that it will come as no surprise to the Minister that I take exactly the same view as that put forward with so much restraint and moderation by the three noble Lords who have spoken. I considered the appointment of police and crime commissioners a tremendous mistake on the part of the Government and the Opposition. Both parties, I think for the best reasons in the world, believed that there had to be some supervision of the police force that would satisfy certain doubts and fears rampant among the public at the time. I believe with all my heart and conviction that they were wrong. It was wrong to consider that a commissar—for that is really what a commissioner is—could be introduced into a force that has a structure of disciplined hierarchy without defeating the very basic element of discipline in that force. You could not do it in the armed services unless it happened to be the Red Army or the army of the People’s Republic of China. You would not think of doing it in the armed services. It has the effect of eating like acid into the morale of the police—we have already seen very many instances of how the life of a chief constable can be made absolutely impossible by a commissioner, and we will see worse.
	I am no prophet or son of a prophet but I am sure that as time runs on and the period of a commissioner’s tenure comes towards its end, where that person gave huge promises and undertakings as a candidate that have not been delivered, he will turn round and say, “This is all due to the chief constable. This man”—or this woman—“has to be removed”. I cannot imagine anything that would eat into the morale of the police service in a more destructive way than that. If my noble friends had proposed cancelling the powers in Clause 126, I would have supported them. I would support anything that diminishes the authority of a commissioner and, for that reason, I support this amendment.
	I say, with great humility, that my attitude has everything to do with what I conceive a police service to be. I had the very high honour—believe it or not, 45 years ago—to be police Minister in the other place, serving under James Callaghan. James Callaghan would say very often, “Do you know what the police service is, as far as I am concerned? It is a case of citizens in uniform”. The powers that the ordinary constable has
	today have been increased over the past 45 years but they are still moderate in relation to the general powers and responsibilities that the ordinary citizen has. The powers of arrest are not immensely greater, but I am not here to lecture the House on that matter.
	I will say that the concept of a commissioner was wrong. Anything that can dilute those powers will be right and anything that would give him the power that is possibly inherent—there is dubiety about the matter—in the execution of Section 126 is to be very much welcomed.
	At the moment we have a clutch of scandals in relation to the police. It gives me no pleasure at all to make that point. The situation was not very different in the early 1960s, when the royal commission under Sir Henry Willink was set up. The work that was done was brilliant and imaginative. It led to the Police Act 1964, which was one of the most progressive advances made in relation to policing in the United Kingdom. I think that such a study is due again, and should examine very carefully whether we need the office of a police commissioner.
	I will end with an edited quotation from Oliver Cromwell, to his Long Parliament: “Consider that you may yet be wrong”.

Lord Imbert: My Lords, I support my noble friends Lord Blair and Lord Condon. As we know, they were both commissioners of the largest, most envied and most copied police service in the western world, the London Metropolitan Police, as was I for six years from 1987 to 1993.
	The amendment is about Section 126 of the anti-social—and, it seems, in some respects anti-police—Bill that is before us. No, I have not made a mistake. This Bill and other legislation that the Government have brought forward in the past few years accurately reflect their disdain for the police service in this country. Indeed, it reflects the contempt in which the Government hold the service that other Governments and police services throughout the world hold as the example and model, and which every country I visited during my career wished to emulate.
	These countries include in particular the USA, where they wanted to know about the British way; Russia, where I was asked to speak to senior personnel about policing in a democracy; South Africa, Malawi, Kenya and other African states; France, Italy, Germany, Australia, Japan and Argentina. I shall not go into detail at this stage as I do not wish to detract in any way from the articulate, intelligent, sensible and persuasive way my noble colleagues have put the case for this amendment, on serious—indeed, very serious—security grounds.
	If your Lordships do not care about the future security of this country, or the essential exchange of vital security intelligence with other countries and their security services around the world, you will reject the amendment.
	If you leave the clause unamended, you may well be closing the door to the exchange of vital intelligence and information, which is likely to spell danger to this country and make impossible the duty facing our
	security services and police in their task of keeping us free, or as free as they possibly can, from terrorism and serious, violent and organised crime.
	I therefore implore all noble Lords to take note of what my noble friends have said and accept this most important amendment. In my opening remarks, I said that this and other legislation brought forward by this Government reflected the disdain and contempt in which the ruling political party holds the police in this country. I cannot, like many thousands of serving police officers, whose morale is at the lowest ebb since the 1950s, refrain from concluding that some clauses are there because someone has said, “Yes, go on. Put that in. That will give them a bloody nose and show who’s running the show”.
	Your Lordships may not be surprised that the first example of that disdain—forgetting about the “f” word being used by a senior member of the Government in a disgraceful incident at the gates of Downing Street—was the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, which made provision for the election, at enormous cost, of so-called police and crime commissioners. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, referred to those persons as commissars. It was intended that those individuals would hold the chief constable to account and have the power to dismiss the chief officer and appoint someone of their choice—even someone of his political party—as the chief constable. Shades of the situation in Nazi Germany in the early 1930s, when traditional policing had to give way to political chief officer appointments. We know how that progressed. It could not happen here, of course, could it?
	I speak as a Cross-Bench Member of your Lordships’ House, but I admit to being a failed Conservative. The first step on that path to failure was during the time of the YouGov poll at the same time as your Lordships were discussing the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, designed to bring about the appointment of police and crime commissioners, together with a large staff and not inconsiderable salaries. Although no less than 65% of those polled did not want the system and only 15% did, the Government took no notice of that demonstrable public opposition. At the same time as the NHS closed a number of accident and emergency departments on the grounds of cost, the Government somehow earmarked £100 million for the introduction of the PCCs.
	The Government remained unmoved although, on the day when the public were given the opportunity to vote for their PCCs, we found that the majority of the electorate decided not to vote—most of those who I know, as a protest, they said. That was a clear indication of the public’s mood which the Government laughingly put down to bad weather keeping those entitled to vote at home. Or was it that the Government did not care what the public thought? Was that yet another example of the Government’s intransigence, demonstrating that they are the ones who make the rules? If they want the rules changed, they change them. After all, they are the governing party and we are mere constables or PCs.
	There have certainly been mistakes with the introduction of these ill advised and unbelievably costly, unwanted and unnecessary schemes. Let us not make
	further mistakes which will not only be costly but may well be a danger to the public—those whose protection should be of paramount importance to any Government. I therefore urge your Lordships to support and accept the amendment tabled by my noble friends.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, as the other ex-police officer in the House this evening, it would be remiss of me not to add my comments to those of other noble Lords. I fully support the amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Blair of Boughton and Lord Condon. I believe the arguments they have made to be powerful and compelling. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, spoke for long enough to have that accolade but we obviously agree as well. I also agree with a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, said but as a member of a party which is part of the coalition Government, perhaps I should not go as far as he has done.
	Unlike my former colleagues, who say that they have no argument in principle with Clause 126 and the appointment of foreign nationals to senior police posts, in that it would be hypocritical as some UK police chiefs have taken posts in foreign forces, never having applied for such a post I do not feel myself to be hypocritical if I go against that principle. My argument is about the culture of policing. As in many professions and businesses, there is a major division between workers and bosses. It is even more marked in the police service than in other professions. That may be because rank and file officers perform shift-work—they go out at night and are on the streets—whereas we senior officers are comfortable in our offices and work more reasonable hours.
	Whatever the reason, there is a divide, particularly between Association of Chief Police Officers’ ranks and those of the federation. However, the one thing that binds us together is that we all, without exception, performed the role of a patrol officer—a constable on the beat—at some stage. We could honestly say when we were ACPO officers that we knew and understood what those officers were facing, at least to some extent. If a foreign officer was appointed, I do not know whether they would have that credibility with rank and file officers.
	The second issue is the uniqueness of police leadership. Almost uniquely, police officers perform the overwhelming majority of their duties without any direct supervision. Their leaders are almost never directly present when those officers are out on the street. Police officers therefore have to have far more credibility than other leaders in the eyes of their subordinates, if those subordinates are to follow the instructions of their leaders. While it may not be impossible, it would be very difficult for a foreign national who has not served as a patrol officer, or a bobby on the beat, in the UK—a country with a unique tradition of being almost exclusively unarmed and which has a tradition of policing by consent—to have credibility in the eyes of rank and file officers. We therefore need to think very carefully about appointing foreign nationals as police chiefs in this country, notwithstanding what message that sends to the excellent police leaders who we have in this country as it is.

Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, perhaps it might help if I could balance out the contributions from the Cross Benches by speaking as someone who has never been a police officer or had any responsibility for policing in this country. I approach this amendment by looking at it on its own terms as something which is directed to Clause 126, on the assumption that the clause remains part of the Bill. I make no comment on Clause 126 itself, but I see merit in the amendment for one particular reason.
	I have no reason to doubt the proposition that the Government care deeply about considerations of national security and intelligence. Approaching this matter from the sidelines, I would be very surprised if considerations of that kind did not cross the mind of those who were considering making these appointments; let us assume that as a given, in favour of the Government. The value of the amendment is that it counters the suspicion that some may have that these considerations are not in the mind of the Government. It also has a disciplinary effect, because the exercise that is being proposed here will, of course, be carried out in advance of any of these appointments being made. It will help to focus the mind and lay on the table the considerations which one would assume the Government will take into account in making these appointments.
	If one thinks of the acceptability of the appointment through the entire police force, the fact that these considerations were on the table and so can be assumed to have been taken into account would add considerable weight to the appointment and the respect in which the appointment-holder would be entitled to be held. Purely from that standpoint, as a former judge and not as somebody who has any experience in the detail of the matter, I respectfully see value in the amendment.

Lord Rosser: My Lords, I will resist the temptation to go beyond the amendment that we are principally discussing, Amendment 105. We acknowledge that the Government appear to have a strong wish to bring personnel into the police from overseas, but there is an obvious concern that has been powerfully expressed tonight over the implications for the security responsibilities of the posts mentioned in Amendment 105 and their access to the highest classification of intelligence. The question has been powerfully raised of whether it is appropriate that the positions indicated in Amendment 105 should be held by a non-UK national on national security grounds. The strength of the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Hope, has indicated, is that it does not say no, but it requires that written advice be sought from the Intelligence and Security Committee as to whether there are any considerations of national security and intelligence that would need to be examined in relation to the appointment of a non-UK national to the posts mentioned in the amendment. Obviously, there is also the requirement that Section 126 would not come into force until the views of the Intelligence and Security Committee had been obtained and given to the Secretary of State and,
	“a copy of those findings has been laid before both Houses of Parliament”.
	I always say, “subject to what the Minister has to say, since he might persuade me otherwise”, but it seems to me that, in view of the concerns that have been raised—
	which seem legitimate—Amendment 105 is eminently reasonable. It is not giving an answer to the question, but it is saying that surely the issue is of sufficient importance that advice should be sought from the Intelligence and Security Committee. We will await the Minister’s response with interest, particularly on whether they have already assessed the security implications of a non-UK national filling one or more of the positions listed in Amendment 105 and have come to the conclusion that there are no national security considerations.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. One or two things have been said that I would have to refute. I disagree with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, on police and crime commissioners, and they are not really the subject of this amendment or this debate. With the greatest respect, I have to say that I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, on the views of this Government about policing. There is no way in which any member of the Government that I know holds the police in disdain, and there is no sense that the Bill is in any way about getting at the police, as the noble Lord implied. I must put that on the record because I owe it to all my colleagues to do just that.
	There is a serious issue in these amendments and I am grateful to noble Lords for addressing them and to the noble Lord, Lord Blair, for bringing them to our attention. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for being a non-policing lay person who wishes to contribute to this debate. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, as well on this issue.
	I understand the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Blair, has raised, and I am grateful for the experience and knowledge of policing that he and his colleagues have brought to bear on this important issue. I agree that it is essential that those who are appointed as police officers undergo vetting appropriate to the role that they undertake. In the case of posts that have responsibility for counterterrorism policing, such as those that are pointed out in the amendment, it is of course vital that very stringent checks can be carried out.
	Of the posts mentioned in the amendment, though, only the post of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner would be affected by the proposals in Clause 126. All the others are not mentioned in this clause or indeed relevant to it. Clause 126, as the noble Lord says, removes the requirement for an applicant to have served as a constable in the UK before being appointed as a chief constable or as the commissioner—where they have certain alternative relevant experience, which is important to emphasise as well. I have to say that there is no requirement under law to have served as a constable in the UK before being appointed as a deputy or assistant commissioner. With regard to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, it will be for the Home Secretary to decide whether to include further restrictions beyond those set out in primary legislation in advertising for the role when a vacancy arises.
	That is the same position as now. As things stand, no policing posts are restricted to British nationals by legislation. I recognise that there will be some posts
	that will require UK nationals only. However, we do not feel it necessary to start specifying this in legislation. We have not done so up to now; why should we start? The Home Secretary has the ability to impose nationality requirements for the commissioner post if necessary, as indeed she did when the post was last advertised. Similarly, the Home Secretary can also impose this requirement when appointing the deputy commissioner and the director-general of the National Crime Agency. It is for the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to make the decision when it comes to assistant commissioners—they are not a Home Office appointment.
	The noble Lord, Lord Blair, has explained why he does not believe that this is a sufficient safeguard, and that the Home Secretary and Parliament must be required to consider the advice of the Intelligence and Security Committee. However, it would be more appropriate for the Home Secretary to take advice from whom she thinks relevant when she is in the position to make these appointments, so that it is current and pertinent to the role being recruited at that time. However, I reassure noble Lords that, whatever nationality restrictions are imposed, no appointment would be made by this or any future Home Secretary that would put national security at risk. We would always expect the successful candidate to undergo the appropriate vetting procedures. If an applicant cannot be vetted, they will not be appointed.
	I shall inform the House about current vetting requirements. The UK has reciprocal agreements with Governments of some EU and NATO countries whereby we recognise their vetting as equivalent to ours. Decisions will need to be made on a case-by-case basis. There is currently no bar to foreign citizens undergoing developed vetting, nor is there a requirement to have a British parent, but 10 years’ residency is usually required.
	While I accept and acknowledge the expertise in the ISC, I do not believe we need to be obliged by law to refer this matter to it. I am satisfied that there are sufficiently robust vetting arrangements in place for these sensitive posts—they are, indeed, sensitive posts. Any change in the law to exclude foreign nationals being appointed to them would be introducing a requirement that has not hitherto applied. With these assurances, I hope the noble Lord will be content not to move his amendment.

Lord Blair of Boughton: The Minister has puzzled me about the idea that the deputy commissioner and the assistant commissioners of the Metropolitan Police are not chief constables. They are chief constables. You have to be a chief constable to be an assistant commissioner or the deputy commissioner. At least, that is my understanding of the matter, and I am getting various nods from my colleagues. Titles in the Metropolitan Police are different, as the Minister knows. To say that the deputy commissioner and the assistant commissioners are not chief constables when they are the most senior chief constables in the land is an oddity. Would the Minister care to reflect on that?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I shall certainly reflect on it. I am speaking from my notes. While they acknowledge the deputy commissioner role, they make quite clear that there is no requirement to have served as a constable
	in the UK before being appointed as a deputy commissioner or assistant commissioner. I say that on the information that I have been supplied. If it proves to be wrong, I will certainly write to the noble Lord and inform the House by placing that letter in the Library.

Lord Blair of Boughton: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I and colleagues will reflect on what the Minister said and what he has and has not agreed. I think it will come as a general surprise to the holders of the deputy commissioner and assistant commissioner posts that they are not chief constables, but we will come to that in due course. I reserve the right to return to the matter on Report and will be grateful for any further information the Minister can provide.
	Amendment 56R agreed.
	Amendments 56S to 56Y
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	56S: Clause 126, page 97, line 39, leave out “College of Policing” and insert “regulations”
	56T: Clause 126, page 97, line 42, leave out “College of Policing” and insert “regulations”
	56U: Clause 126, page 98, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert—
	“(1D) The College of Policing must recommend to the Secretary of State matters to be designated under this paragraph.
	(1E) The Secretary of State may make regulations under this paragraph only if they give effect to a recommendation under sub-paragraph (1D).””
	56V: Clause 126, page 98, line 15, leave out “the College of Policing” and insert “regulations made by the Secretary of State”
	56W: Clause 126, page 98, line 17, leave out “College of Policing” and insert “regulations”
	56X: Clause 126, page 98, line 20, leave out “College of Policing” and insert “regulations”
	56Y: Clause 126, page 98, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert—
	“(3D) The College of Policing must recommend to the Secretary of State matters to be designated under this section.
	(3E) The Secretary of State may make regulations under this section only if they give effect to a recommendation under subsection (3D).””
	Amendments 56S to 56Y agreed.
	Clause 126, as amended, agreed.
	Clauses 127 and 128 agreed.
	Clause 129: Powers of local policing bodies to provide or commission services
	Debate on whether Clause 129 should stand part of the Bill.

Lord Rosser: Clause 129(4) gives the definition of anti-social behaviour. It is that it,
	“causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress”,
	rather than the nuisance or annoyance definition that relates to Clause 1 for the power to grant injunctions. That is the IPNAs. In Clause 94(6) on out-of-court disposals, anti-social behaviour is also defined as harassment, alarm and distress rather than nuisance or annoyance. I am not particularly expecting the
	Minister to give me an instant answer. If he is unable to do so, which I think may well be the case, I would be very grateful if he could subsequently let me know why there is a distinction and why it refers to the definition as being “harassment, alarm or distress” in Clause 129, which is different from the definition given in Clause 1 but is the same as the definition given in Clause 94(6).

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I will not seek to give an off-the-cuff answer to that question. If the noble Lord is happy for me to write to him I will do so, particularly as I am sure we wish to expedite the business. I hope that we can agree that Clause 129 should stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 129 agreed.
	Amendment 56YA
	 Moved by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
	56YA: After Clause 129, insert the following new Clause—
	“Information about guests at hotels believed to be used for child sexual exploitation
	(1) A police officer of at least the rank of inspector may issue a notice under this section to the owner, operator or manager of a hotel that the officer reasonably believes has been or will be used for the purposes of—
	(a) child sexual exploitation, or
	(b) conduct that is preparatory to, or otherwise connected with, child sexual exploitation.
	(2) A notice under this section must be in writing and must—
	(a) specify the hotel to which it relates;
	(b) specify the date on which it comes into effect and the date on which it expires;
	(c) explain the effect of subsections (4) and (5) and sections (Appeals against notices under section (Information about guests at hotels believed to be used for child sexual exploitation)) and (Offences).
	(3) The date on which the notice expires must not be more than 6 months after the date on which it comes into effect.
	(4) A constable may require a person issued with a notice under this section to provide the constable with information about guests at the hotel.
	(5) The only information that a constable may require under subsection (4) is—
	(a) guests’ names and addresses;
	(b) other information about guests that—
	(i) is specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, and
	(ii) can be readily obtained from one or more of the guests themselves.
	(6) A requirement under subsection (4)—
	(a) must be in writing;
	(b) must specify the period to which the requirement relates;
	(c) must specify the date or dates on or by which the required information is to be provided.
	The period specified under paragraph (b) must begin no earlier than the time when the requirement is imposed and must end no later than the expiry of the notice under this section.
	(7) In this section—
	“child sexual exploitation” means conduct that constitutes an offence listed in subsection (8)(a) or (b), or an offence listed in subsection (8)(c) against a person under 18;
	“guest” means a person who, for a charge payable by that person or another, has the use of a guest room at the hotel in question;
	“hotel” includes any guest house or other establishment of a similar kind at which accommodation is provided for a charge.
	(8) The offences are—
	(a) an offence under any of the following sections of the Sexual Offences Act 2003—
	sections 5 to 8 (rape and other offences against children under 13);
	sections 9 to 13 (child sex offences);
	sections 16 to 19 (abuse of position of trust);
	sections 25 and 26 (familial child sex offences);
	sections 47 to 50 (abuse of children through prostitution and pornography);
	(b) an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (indecent photographs of children);
	(c) an offence under any of the following sections of the Sexual Offences Act 2003—
	sections 1 to 4 (rape, assault and causing sexual activity without consent);
	sections 30 to 41 (persons with a mental disorder impeding choice, inducements etc to persons with a mental disorder, and care workers for persons with a mental disorder);
	section 59A (trafficking people for sexual exploitation);
	section 61 (administering a substance with intent);
	sections 66 and 67 (exposure and voyeurism).”

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, child sexual exploitation is an abhorrent crime and we are determined to stamp it out. In the past, all too often these crimes were largely hidden, but now child sexual exploitation is rightly centre stage as an issue that we must tackle. We are strengthening the system of civil orders used to manage the risk of sexual offences through Part 9 of the Bill, which noble Lords have already considered in Committee. The provisions in this group of government amendments provide an additional power to tackle the problem from a different angle. They will make it harder for child sex offenders to be able to use the anonymity of hotels and similar venues to commit offences against young people and children. A number of recent high-profile cases, such as in those in Oxford and Keighley, have shown that offenders have used the cover of hotels and bed-and-breakfast accommodation to commit sexual offences against children. By introducing these new powers, we will help the police to tackle child sexual exploitation where there are reasonable suspicions that offending has taken place or will take place.
	Already, police forces are actively tackling this issue, as evidenced by the increasing number of cases that the police are bringing before the courts and the significant sentences being handed down to perpetrators. In addition, on a national level, we have strengthened the response to this issue through the inclusion of child sexual exploitation within our strategy to combat organised crime. The newly established National Crime Agency is strengthening the UK’s capability to combat child abuse online with some 4,000 specialist officers. We have also set up a Home Office-led national group through which agencies are working together to better identify those at risk and create a more victim-focused culture within the police, health and children’s services. Whether exploitation is happening now or has happened in the past, we will continue to ensure that victims are not left to suffer in silence and that those who exploit them are rightly brought to justice.
	The Government want to support the police in their efforts to vigorously pursue perpetrators of this despicable crime. Targeted new powers of the kind that we are proposing will provide additional help to law enforcement agencies by allowing the police to obtain information about guests staying at hotels, guest houses and B&Bs where they suspect sexual exploitation could be taking place. If there is a reasonable suspicion that premises are being used for child exploitation, a police officer of at least inspector rank may issue a notice to the owner, operator or manager. That person would then be required to provide the police with information over a specified period of up to six months about guests who check in on and after the date on which the notice takes effect. This could include information such as the name, age, address and relationship of guests, which would be used for vital intelligence and evidence-gathering. Where there is information that a child is potentially at risk, police would use existing powers to protect the child and pursue offenders in the normal investigative process.
	It is essential that this new power is taken seriously and can be enforced. That is why it will be an offence for a person served with a notice to fail to comply, and they will be subject to a maximum penalty of a level 4 fine, currently £2,500. However, clearly there should be safeguards. An offence will not have been committed if the person has a reasonable excuse for failing to comply or if reasonable steps were taken to obtain or verify the required information, and an appeal against the notice can be made in a magistrates’ court. The intention of the new power is to create a proportionate and targeted tool that will be used in an intelligence-led way to help prevent abuse, and I commend these amendments to the Committee.

Lord Rosser: My Lords, as we know, hotels do not require a specific licence to operate unless they are licensed to sell alcohol, and they certainly have no specific duties to report suspected child abuse. Clearly we are at one in wanting to eliminate child sexual exploitation as far as is possible, which is the objective of these amendments. However, I will raise one or two questions.
	In the information that the Minister sent us, he said that it is not expected that this targeted power will be used more than 10 times a year, and that,
	“as such, the impact on business is expected to be minimal”.
	I do not ask him to tell me why he thinks that the figure is 10 rather than nine or 11, but it would be helpful if he could give some indication as to roughly where that figure of 10 came from.
	Amendment 56YA defines “hotel” as,
	“any guest house or other establishment of a similar kind at which accommodation is provided for a charge”.
	I imagine that it must be possible to find some accommodation that is provided which is similar to a guest house but with no charge—something might conceivably be run by a charity. I want to confirm—and this is not particularly a criticism—that the wording would mean that that kind of establishment was excluded from the provisions of that clause.
	The view of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is that it considers that regulations specifying additional categories of information should
	be subject to the affirmative procedure. I understand that the Government do not envisage that. If I am correct in making that assertion, perhaps the Minister could say why. If I am wrong, and it will require the affirmative procedure, I will be very pleased indeed.
	On this requirement under the clauses we are discussing, to provide information, for example in relation to addresses of guests at the hotel, is it the Government’s intention—I assume that it is but just want to clarify it—that it will apply only in relation to this particular kind of offence? One can think of situations in which a hotel was used by individuals to perpetrate other forms of quite serious crimes. Child sexual exploitation is obviously very much at the top end, but a hotel could be used to enact or plan other forms of crime. Do the Government intend that this provision will apply over a wider field than child sexual exploitation, which obviously we all accept is a very serious crime?
	On the information about guests that might be gleaned, if that information does not result in a charge or a successful prosecution, for how long can it be retained by the police? Can it be retained in perpetuity or will it have to be given up or destroyed after a certain period of time? Since I do not think that that is indicated in the Bill—I am sure that if I am wrong, I will be corrected—for what purposes may the police use any information obtained about guests, and are there any restrictions on possible use of information provided to the police under these clauses?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I will turn to some of the issues—if not all, I will certainly write to the noble Lord in that respect. On the issue of the Delegated Powers Committee’s recommendation that the order-making power in Amendment 56YA should be subject to the affirmative procedure, that report has come today, we are considering it and we will respond to the committee’s report in advance of Report stage.
	The noble Lord raised the issue of the application of these particular proposals just for child sexual exploitation. It is their primary aim to target that particular heinous crime. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that this is something that needs to be tackled head-on.
	As for the figure that the noble Lord asked about in the briefing, that was a matter that I raised, too. This figure is indicative; one would hope that it was zero. That is the sentiment that I would express from the Government, but it is an indicative number only.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about accommodation provided for a charge. The provision is aimed at hotels and bed-and-breakfasts; it would not cover accommodation provided for free, such as accommodation run by a charity. I trust that that has answered most, if not all, of his questions, but if there is anything pending I shall write to him.
	Amendment 56YA agreed.
	Amendments 56YB and 56YC
	 Moved by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
	56YB: After Clause 129, insert the following new Clause—
	“Appeals against notices under section (Information about guests at hotels believed to be used for child sexual exploitation)
	(1) A person issued with a notice under section (Information about guests at hotels believed to be used for child sexual exploitation) may appeal against it to a magistrates’ court.
	(2) An appeal must be made within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the person is issued with the notice.
	(3) Where there is an appeal against a notice under section (Information about guests at hotels believed to be used for child sexual exploitation), then until the appeal is finally determined or withdrawn—
	(a) no requirement may be imposed under subsection (4) of that section in relation to the premises in question;
	(b) any such requirement already imposed is of no effect.
	(4) A magistrates’ court hearing an appeal against a notice under section (Information about guests at hotels believed to be used for child sexual exploitation) must—
	(a) quash the notice,
	(b) modify the notice, or
	(c) dismiss the appeal.”
	56YC: After Clause 129, insert the following new Clause—
	“Offences
	(1) An offence is committed by a person who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement imposed on the person under (Information about guests at hotels believed to be used for child sexual exploitation)(4).
	(2) An offence is committed by a person who, in response to a requirement imposed on the person under section (Information about guests at hotels believed to be used for child sexual exploitation)(4), provides incorrect information which the person—
	(a) did not take reasonable steps to verify or to have verified, or
	(b) knows to be incorrect.
	(3) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (2)(a) if there were no steps that the person could reasonably have taken to verify the information or to have it verified.
	(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.”
	Amendments 56YB and 56YC agreed.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: To move Amendment 56YD, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach.
	Amendment 56YD
	 Moved by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
	56YD: Before Clause 130, insert the following new Clause—
	“Power to take further fingerprints or non-intimate samples
	(1) In section 61 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (fingerprinting)—
	(a) in subsections (5A) and (5B), for the words after “investigation” in paragraph (b) there is substituted “but
	(i) subsection (3A)(a) or (b) above applies, or
	(ii) subsection (5C) below applies.”;
	(b) after subsection (5B) there is inserted—
	“(5C) This subsection applies where—
	(a) the investigation was discontinued but subsequently resumed, and
	(b) before the resumption of the investigation the fingerprints were destroyed pursuant to section 63D(3) below.”
	(2) In section 63 of that Act (non-intimate samples)—
	(a) at the end of subsection (3ZA)(b) there is inserted “, or
	(iii) subsection (3AA) below applies.”;
	(b) in subsection (3A)(b), for “insufficient; or” there is substituted “insufficient, or
	(iii) subsection (3AA) below applies; or”;
	(c) after subsection (3A) there is inserted—
	“(3AA) This subsection applies where the investigation was discontinued but subsequently resumed, and before the resumption of the investigation—
	(a) any DNA profile derived from the sample was destroyed pursuant to section 63D(3) below, and
	(b) the sample itself was destroyed pursuant to section 63R(4), (5) or (12) below.””

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: It was always my great desire to be the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach. My ultimate aspiration has today been achieved twice over.
	These amendments are designed to improve the use of DNA and fingerprints in criminal investigations. I shall begin with Amendment 56YD, which allows the retaking of DNA and fingerprints if an investigation is restarted. At present, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows DNA sampling and fingerprinting of an arrested or charged person only once in an investigation. If the police or the Crown Prosecution Service decide not to proceed against an accused person, that person’s DNA and fingerprints must be deleted, unless they have previously been convicted, or charged with a qualifying offence. If the investigation is later restarted, there is no power to retake the DNA and fingerprints. The CPS has now introduced a new procedure, the victims’ right to review, under which a decision not to proceed may be reviewed and the case restarted. If DNA and fingerprints have already been taken and destroyed, there is currently no power to take them again if the case is restarted. Amendment 56YD provides for such a power.
	Amendment 56YE ensures that the retention of a person’s DNA is determined by considering their entire criminal history. If a conviction in that history would allow retention, it is important that a DNA profile can be retained, regardless of whether the arrest in connection with which the profile was obtained was itself followed by a conviction. This is important because, normally, when a person has had a DNA sample taken on a first arrest, DNA is not taken on any later arrests, because that would incur unnecessary costs to obtain the same profile. However, without this amendment, there is a danger that the DNA from the first arrest would be deleted from the database if there was no causal link between the taking of DNA on a first arrest and a conviction obtained following a later arrest. Amendment 56YE makes the position clear, thereby ensuring that a DNA profile can be retained indefinitely whenever someone has a previous conviction or caution for a recordable offence, irrespective of the fact that they were not proceeded against for the offence in respect of which the DNA sample was taken.
	Finally, Amendment 97 to Schedule 9 to the Bill is consequential on amendment 56YD and amends Schedule 2A to PACE, which allows the police to require people to attend at a police station for the purposes of having their fingerprints or DNA taken. It duly applies the existing time limits for imposing such a requirement
	to the new provisions that I have described. Under existing legislation, if a person is arrested or charged then released without having had their DNA or fingerprints taken, the police may take them later, but only within the following six months. The amendments to Schedule 9 apply this principle to the scenario involving retaking, putting a time limit of six months from the restarting of the investigation on the power to retake DNA or fingerprints. These amendments are sensible measures to improve the use of DNA and fingerprints which I commend to the Committee.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, I note the Minister’s recidivist tendencies in terms of his aspirations to be the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, and congratulate him on his judgment in that respect.
	This is a classic case of legislating in haste and repenting at leisure, because the problems that these amendments seek to address were highlighted by the Opposition when the Government originally legislated. We pointed out that the Government should have taken the greatest possible steps they could in acknowledging the legal requirements set down under European court judgments to maintain the retention of DNA so that it could be used to define and catch criminals who had committed crimes or could potentially commit further crimes. This was argued during the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Act, and the argument was not accepted at the time by the Government. Now, not untypically in an era of rapid U-turns, they have made a U-turn, although it has taken some time. It is clearly right that the Government should act in this way. It is notable that on this occasion they are not following the practice of the Conservative Party in making sure that their records are consigned to history rather than being kept available. That is welcome, although perhaps we may see a U-turn in that respect as well.
	So far as this legislation is concerned, there is still an issue around the retention of information. The Minister referred to the fact that samples would have to be taken within six months. I do not understand the rationale for that. DNA samples can be taken and kept for long after the event. I recently read an interesting history book called The Islesin which DNA samples were taken from a cave in Cheddar Gorge from remains going back some thousands of years. Yet with those DNA samples they managed to trace somebody living in the 21st century in that area. These things can last. Crime is not just a short-term matter—I understand that an estimated 20,000 to 23,000 people could have committed crimes within a span of six years—so I do not understand the rationale for the six-month period. While we welcome the progress made so far, perhaps we could have an explanation of why six months is being insisted on rather than a longer period. My honourable friends in another place were suggesting that a period of six years would be appropriate. After all, we are talking here about potentially serious crimes; we would not be bothering with DNA samples if we were not. There is no rationale, in my judgment, for the period the Government have selected.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his broad support and support in principle for what we are seeking to do here. I also
	listen with great care whenever he talks about history and literature. Today he combined both. I am forever learning from the noble Lord.
	On the specific question of why six months, it is our view that there must be a limit otherwise people who have been arrested and then had proceedings against them dropped for lack of evidence would never actually know whether they were free of the risk of having their DNA and fingerprints taken. Six months has been regarded as the reasonable limit in legislation passed by this Government as well as the previous one. The noble Lord mentioned the Protection of Freedoms Act, namely that the DNA of a person who has not committed any offence should not be retained indefinitely. He used that as a premise for saying perhaps that the Government are U-turning. This is not a U-turn. I always regard these things as progression and I think we have moved in the right way and I am glad that the noble Lord respects that. I beg to move.
	Amendment 56YD agreed.
	Amendment 56YE
	 Moved by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
	56YE: Before Clause 130, insert the following new Clause—
	“Power to retain fingerprints or DNA profile in connection with different offence
	(1) For section 63P of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (section 63D material obtained for one purpose and used for another) there is substituted—
	“63P Retention of 63D material in connection with different offence
	(1) Subsection (2) applies if—
	(a) section 63D material is taken (or, in the case of a DNA profile, derived from a sample taken) from a person in connection with the investigation of an offence, and
	(b) the person is subsequently arrested for or charged with a different offence, or convicted of or given a penalty notice for a different offence.
	(2) Sections 63E to 63O and sections 63Q and 63T have effect in relation to the material as if the material were also taken (or, in the case of a DNA profile, derived from a sample taken)—
	(a) in connection with the investigation of the offence mentioned in subsection (1)(b),
	(b) on the date on which the person was arrested for that offence (or charged with it or given a penalty notice for it, if the person was not arrested).”
	(2) The amendment made by subsection (1) applies even where the event referred to in subsection (1)(b) of the substituted section 63P occurs before the day on which this section comes into force.”
	Amendment 56YE agreed.
	Amendment 56YF
	 Moved by Lord Rosser
	56YF: Before Clause 130, insert the following new Clause—
	“Review of provisions to address stalking
	The Home Secretary shall carry out a review of progress and implementation of the provisions used by the police to address stalking.”

Lord Rosser: My Lords, in the discussions on the Protection of Freedoms Bill a cross-party alliance argued that stalking should be made an offence, which
	led to the Government accepting the point. However, there now appears to be a need to monitor the implementation of the new law and the progress of training provisions for the police. This is why we have tabled this amendment, which asks the Home Secretary to carry out a review of progress and implementation of the provisions used by the police to address stalking.
	We have called for national standards on police training for domestic and sexual violence, including stalking. Victims repeatedly say—fairly or unfairly—that police officers do not understand stalking and are not aware of the new laws and, as such, are reluctant to intervene. Police information notices—often referred to, perhaps wrongly, as harassment warnings—are apparently sometimes being handed out rather as a matter of course in stalking cases to victims and the alleged perpetrators alike, which certainly victims regard—again, rightly or wrongly—as a failure properly to investigate the complaints.
	As I understand it, the number of arrests in the first six months of stalking being an offence was just over 300. This is in marked contrast to the situation in Scotland. In the 30 months since its law was introduced, it had just over 1,400 detections recorded, and, of those, just under 1,050 had commenced prosecution. Of that figure of just under 1,050, 450 had resulted in convictions and 315 still await prosecution. This suggests that the figures for England and Wales are well below expectations taking into account the massive difference in population with Scotland, which has only approximately one-tenth of the population of England and Wales. Therefore, these figures are surprising and do not appear to reflect the seriousness of stalking.
	Case material that has apparently been received by the National Stalking Advocacy Service shows outstanding training needs, particularly understanding the nature of the new laws, the need to consider all stalking behaviour when victims complain and the serious nature of this criminal stalking behaviour. Even though the Government have made stalking an offence, which obviously is major progress, this alone is not enough to make it work. Given some of the evidence that is now coming to light, there appears to be a case that a review is needed on the implementation of the provisions used by the police to address stalking, and that is what Amendment 56YF seeks to achieve.

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, I was one of those who spoke on a number of occasions during the passage of the then Protection of Freedoms Bill on the issue of stalking. Like others, I welcome the implementation of that Act.
	I endorse the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, but wish to add two or three more. In addition to the worry about the numbers of arrests and charges, the geographical data are also very patchy. There have been 133 arrests in the Met area but none in Gloucestershire. Lancashire has had 36 arrests, there have been 20 in the Thames Valley, 14 in Suffolk, 12 in Bedfordshire but just two in Merseyside. These disparities are also reflected in the actual charge rates, should the issue progress to that. What these data seem to be saying is that some forces have trained and prepared their officers for the new offence but others have not.
	When the stalking clauses were discussed during the passage of the then Protection of Freedoms Bill, there was cross-party agreement that there would not be real change in stalking offences until the culture not just in the police but in the criminal justice system changed and they understood the new law and how to implement it. It is good news that the College of Policing will cover this training in the future, but can the Minister say where and how much training has been undertaken in the past 18 months since the legislation was concluded, so that those areas not implementing the new law are prodded into action?
	There is some evidence to show that the police and the CPS often choose the lesser charge of harassment in order to obtain a conviction, even though the intensity of stalking, repeat offences and the level of distress to the victim score highly. Can the Minister say what the department plans to do to change this and to ensure that serial stalkers are charged appropriately? It is not good enough to say that any conviction is sufficient when a community sentence or short custodial sentence mean that the stalker is free to resume his or her activities very quickly. Sadly, that increasingly happens.
	There are also worries about sentencing, particularly with regard to suspended sentences. Have sentencing guidelines been updated since the introduction of the new stalking law a year ago? Further to that, is there a survey to check that court reports now look at the whole history of stalking for a particular perpetrator, rather than just the most recent offence? A recent shocking case six or so weeks ago in Cornwall appeared to take only one incident into account, and the stalker was released back to his home. That would have been logical if it had not been the house next door to his victim. There had been a long history of stalking behaviour in this case, and the sentence and his release home did not take into account the proximity of the victim.
	The amendment calls for a review of progress and implementation of the provisions used by the police to address stalking, but I believe that it needs to go wider than that. As we have heard, Scotland has set the pace. England and Wales need to review the first year across the whole criminal justice system, not just the police, and to ensure that there is rapid and effective training so that stalkers are arrested, charged and, where found guilty, appropriately sentenced.
	I support the proposal for a review but I particularly ask that comparisons are made with Scotland and other countries that have also introduced a specific offence of stalking so that our review, should it happen, is not done in isolation.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, this proposed new clause provides an opportunity for me to update noble Lords on the work that has been done since the commencement of the new offences in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 on 25 November 2012 to tackle stalking.
	We agreed that there was a gap in the law and, on that basis, introduced two new offences of stalking and stalking where there is a fear of violence, serious alarm or distress. These sit alongside the existing offences of harassment and putting people in fear of violence in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The stalking offences recognise that the fixated and obsessive nature of stalking differs from harassment.
	Crown Prosecution Service figures show that in 2012-13 prosecutions were commenced for more than 8,000 harassment offences, and 91 prosecutions were in relation to the new stalking offences. One has to understand that these figures represent the number of prosecutions initiated within a relatively few months of these offences being introduced. I think that all noble Lords will agree that it takes time for prosecutions to progress through the criminal justice system. We will certainly be monitoring official data and we expect to see an increase in the number of prosecutions and convictions. Police and other professionals need to ensure that they are equipped to make the distinction between harassment and stalking in these complex cases. Official data from the Ministry of Justice on convictions and sentencing will be available in May 2014.
	I reassure both my noble friend Lady Brinton and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that there is obviously a difference in the situation in which Scotland finds itself compared with England and Wales, in that the legislation in Scotland has had time to bed down longer than it has here. The overall position in Scotland is positive, which suggests that the legislation is useful and we can learn from its experience.
	Legislation, of course, is not sufficient on its own. We acknowledge that there is still more to do and I am pleased to have the opportunity to outline the steps that we are taking to ensure that the legislation is used to maximum effect. We need to ensure that police and prosecutors have the training necessary to tackle this type of crime. All newly qualified police officers, uniformed officers and investigators and public protection officers are expected to complete the training developed by the College of Policing as part of their continuous professional development. Since October 2012, the stalking and harassment training package has been completed 44,844 times, which is a rather nice number for anyone who is interested in beautiful numbers.
	In addition, the Crown Prosecution Service developed an e-learning module to further support prosecutors in prosecuting cyberstalking, non-cyber stalking and harassment. This new e-learning module was launched in November 2012 to coincide with the commencement of the new stalking offences and has been mandatory for all prosecutors since June. More than 1,000 Crown Prosecution Service lawyers have completed the training since it became mandatory.
	The national policing lead for stalking and harassment and the Director of Public Prosecutions wrote jointly to all chief constables and chief Crown prosecutors as recently as last month, identifying areas where the police and the Crown Prosecution Service will work together to improve the response to stalking. They
	intend to address these issues in a joint national protocol between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, which is expected to be published next spring.
	My noble friend Lady Brinton asked why certain police forces have trained a low number of officers on stalking offences. There is differential between some police forces and others. Chief constables have responsibility for ensuring their officers are effectively trained. Priorities for forces are informed by the plans of their police and crime commissioner. That is why the Home Office is engaging with police and crime commissioners to raise their awareness of violence against women and girls issues, including stalking. The noble Baroness also asked about sentencing guidelines. The Sentencing Council plans to start work on the new public order guideline in 2014 and consideration will be given to including guidance on the new stalking offences as part of this work. I am grateful to my noble friend for mentioning that issue.
	I share the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friend to ensure the new legislation is effective. We will be happy to update the House on the progress of our work in this area in due course, and the Government of course expect to be held to account through the usual parliamentary channels. I am not inviting Parliamentary Questions but I am sure that they will follow if I do not keep the House properly informed. However, I am not convinced that these provisions should be singled out in a particular way by imposing a duty to review the progress and implementation of the provisions used by the police. As noble Lords will know, all legislation is reviewed on a regular basis in any event. On the basis of my response to this debate, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Brinton: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer on training, but one area that was not covered was the judiciary and magistrates. Perhaps the Minister could write to me with that information at a later date.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I would be happy to.

Lord Rosser: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her contribution and for the information that she gave. Of course, she drew attention to the significant geographical discrepancies, the question of whether it was harassment or stalking that was being pursued and whether it was the right charge in each case. That is a significant point.
	I understand why the Minister asks, “Why pull out this particular offence and treat it differently as far as a review is concerned?”. But when discussions were taking place in 2012, there was a strength of feeling about this which led the Government to make the decision that they did. It is understandable that, having partially achieved what was wanted—namely, it is in legislation—the next part is to see whether anything is being done with that legislation.
	We will want to reflect on what the Minister said before deciding whether to pursue this at a later stage of our discussions on the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 56YF withdrawn.
	Clause 130 agreed.
	House resumed.

House adjourned at 10.26 pm.